Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.17.17 Combined Parks Commission Packet NOTICE OF MEETING City of Lake Elmo Park Commission 3800 Laverne Avenue North April 17, 2017 6:30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a) March 20, 2017 4. Lions Park 5. Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines 6. Camera Protocol Procedure 7. Upcoming Developments 8. Southwind Final Plat 9. May 2017 Meeting Agenda 10. Discussion Items a) Review of the offerings, activities , and costs of Family Day b) Off-leash dogs in the City of Lake Elmo Parks 11. Staff Reports & Commission Update 12. Adjourn ***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations. Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character MINUTES City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission March 20, 2017 Members Present: Chair Weis, Commissioners Ames, Frick, Nelson, Nuenfeldt, Olinger, Steele, Zeno, Pearce Members Absent: None Staff Present: Administrator Handt, Public Works Director Weldon, City Planner Becker The meeting was called to order by Chair Weis at 6:30 PM. Approval of Agenda Motion by Weis, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda. Motion passed. Approval of Minutes Motion by Weis, seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion passed. Lions Park Handt reported that Brady Hickcox’s, Miller Architects, has submitted 3 possible layouts for Lion’s Park. He is looking for feedback from the Commission regarding these layout options. Hickcox’s presented three options for the park. He state all three options show the field moved to the North to align the first base line with the 45th parallel. He said the main difference is maintaining or bulldozing the house. The plans show double the bleacher space that exists. Guy suggested that the volley ball courts be turned 90 degrees, would fit better, would have north/south alignment, and would allow for two courts. Steele asked them to think about the longevity of the park and not just do the cheapest route and to maintain as many mature trees as possible. He also mentioned that if the house is removed, could the area be used as a picnic area rather than parking? Weis asked if the parking areas are paved and if impervious surfacing in the park would exceed the amount and would underground tanks be needed. If they are required for the parking lots, it could be $45,000 for a tank. Is it possible to use the house itself as a restroom and warming house and level the garage? Weis reminded them the Library is getting a new parking lot. Nuenfeldt mentioned that Lake Elmo is a pollinator designated City and would like to see a pollinator garden installed on the park. She would be happy to lead the planning on that. Zeno suggested that picnic tables be installed by the playground and that parking remain near the bleachers. Steele asked what the minimum number of parking spaces they can have, if there is a path that will connect the parking to the park and if it is ADA compliant. He also asked if the batting cage is a critical piece and if the batting cage could be switched with the warm-up area? Suggested that bathrooms would be critical at the park. Ames suggested that if the house is gone, a picnic shelter that could provide covered areas for spectators as well. Dave Faint, 3617 Laverne Ave, suggested that there is a 6 foot bike path on the north side of the property that connects to 39th St. He is favor of seeing the house removed. He worked on the house when it was converted to the art center. Some of the structural framing was removed and there are mold issues since water is getting into the basement. Barry Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Ave, the house was purchased in 2004 to tear it down. Can the playground equipment be moved? In order to put it by the picnic pavilion that will go in? He asked if the skating rink will be going on the parking area would it allow the boards to go up. Parking surface, different boards, in beds that could be capped. There are sewer stubs for the park. Bill 3603 Laverne Ave, suggested that the house has no useful purpose except for a couple hours on Mondays and has had no upkeep since it was purchased. If it is maintained, it would need to be hooked up to sewer. Kathy Weeks, 3647 Lake Elmo Ave, would like to see the house eliminated, since bringing up to standards would be a lot of money and not fiscally responsible. Likes the idea of staging the park and doing it right. She would like to see a decision made tonight to it get the park started. She also offered to help research and design a plaque for the 45th parallel and would donate money toward it. Weldon, lighting will need to be looked into, there may need to be new lights installed shining from north to south. Hickcox’s will be returning with design revisions and a phasing plan to the April meeting. Free Library Question Becker stated that she asked the resident that is proposing the Free Library in Pebble Park to show where in the park it is proposed to be installed. She will be asked to sign a form that this is a donation. Nicole Petroff lives 3 houses away from the park and 2 other neighbors close to the park have small children. The plan is to take turns sharing books and maintenance in this proposed library. The reason was also to bring something positive to the park since it is frequently vandalized. She selected the location near the trees in hopes of it not being vandalized. She stated that if it is vandalized or destroyed, the plan would be to rebuild. Discussion around other possible locations for the library included, near the entrance, near the light at the park. The resident felt that near the entrance would be too muddy and that near the light is a portable restroom and it has been vandalized in the past. Dark haired guy said that he thinks it is such a good idea Ames made a motion to approve the Free Library at the proposed location and that it will be fully maintained by the resident, seconded by Frick. Approved unanimously. Savona Park Weldon reported the playground surfacing would change the amenities at the park, if rubber mulch is purchased, it would eliminate some of the amenities preferred by the neighborhood since it is three times the cost of wood. Wood mulch would allow the majority of the wish list. For the cost of the rubber mulch the wood mulch could be replenished two to three times for the same cost as the rubber mulch over a 15 year span. There are also health concerns within the public, nothing conclusive, but the City of Minneapolis is looking at removing rubber mulch from their parks. Discussion about the right approach to the parks that already have rubber mulch. The conclusion was there are 3 parks within the City that currently have the rubber mulch and that the mulch should remain until it is determined to be carcinogenic. Frick made a motion to use wood mulch for all playground areas within the City for current and future projects and not rubber mulch, seconded by Steele. The motion was amended to include “until such times as more information is available” by vest guy. Wood mulch passed unanimously. Competitive bids, tree preservation, creating a natural planting area, and park size were all discussed. Ames made a motion to approve option Webber 3a for Phase 1 Savona Park, not to exceed $150,000, seconded by Steele. Motion passed unanimously. Park Development Policy Plan Becker presented that with recommendation from the Commission the language was changed to Guidelines. Becker highlighted some of the changes made and explained that having a park search area of ½ mile would be fairly easy to get 100 certificates of occupancy. The Village Preserve Park was mentioned and within ½ a mile of the park, there are about 600 lots. Staff is looking for feedback from the Commission. They can either approve as presented or staff can amend them and bring them back to the next meeting. Ames asked if item 3C recreation amenities included County Parks and boat launches. Becker suggested that including what is included within the definition. Frick is concerned about running out of money by providing neighborhood parks and City parks. Frick is concerned the level of requests is increasing. Steele also has concerns about costs and tracking requests and acreage of proposed developments. He asked where the $500 per house came from, Becker responded it was based on previous Commission discussion and the 100 Certificates of Occupancy for the first phase of developments and the first phase of park installations. Steele mentioned his concern with the Guidelines, that they could be used against them. Handt said she talked to the City Attorney and the statement “Neighborhood Park planning is entirely within the discretion of the City and nothing in these guidelines is intended to abrogate that discretion” was added to relive the City of this responsibility. Ames mentioned that at some point there will be no more new developments and the money to maintain the parks will come out of the City budget. He also said he is not interested in seconded guessing the City attorney. Camera Protocol Procedure Becker presented that at the last meeting the Commission voted to approve the lease agreement for the Nature Center. Staff has drafted a Camera Protocol Procedure for review since the approval of the Nature Center called for one. Weis feels there should be a maximum number of cameras allowed at park. Then staff has a baseline for a limit, providing staff clear guidance and not putting staff in the middle. Discussion about if there is a maximum number of days a camera can be located in the park. There should be an end date on the application and staff should be reviewing that the cameras are removed. If there is a violation of camera removal, the City will be remove the cameras at the Nature Centers expense. Ames does not want any cameras since it is a City Park. Feels that Sunfish Lake Park is a natural retreat away from cameras and it should be preserved. Frick suggested that that the reason the Nature Center is requesting the use of cameras is to record ecological data. Some discussion about other individuals in the future using the Camera Protocol for use in other parks that may not have the same intent. Steele would like a report on the camera usage. Nuenfeldt asked if we could research other cities and their policies related to cameras. Zeno requested that the cameras would not point at trail and that they would be used for monitoring animal behavior and census. Had concern about sound records and if the cameras would capture a portion of a trail that there should be flags or markers indicating people would be on camera. Handt suggested adding a complaint procedure. Maybe limit the number of nature activities at any one time in order to capture the concerns of the Commission members. Ed Nielsen Birthday Resolution Handt state that Ed Nielsen was instrumental in obtaining the land for Sunfish Lake Park and previously served on the Parks Commission. The resolution would be sent to Nielson to honor him for his contribution. Discussion about Sunfish Lake Park and the nature center regarding talking about historic people and properties in the area. Nuenfeldt made a motion to approve the Resolution for Ed Nielsen’s 80th birthday, Steele added and for all of his contributions to the City and seconded the motion. Motion was approved unanimously. April Meeting Camera Protocol Procedure Lions Park Policy Development Plan Spring Family Day in Sunfish Lake Park Little Libraries Staff Reports and Commission Update 1. Spring Family Day in Sunfish Lake Park in May last year it was larger and there was a financial contribution. The date for this year is May 20th. Handt mentioned that the funds would come out of the Parks Operating budget as it did last year, if the Commission decides to contribute. The one item to consider is that May 20th is also the City Cleanup Day. 2. Handt none. 3. Becker the monthly calendar would be assessing the 50th Street trails and costs. Handt asked that they wait for Council direction on that discussion. 4. Weldon shared they hope to complete the surfacing of Easton Park. They need to verify that the drain tile is installed and working and then they can add the surfacing. 5. Weldon, working with an Eagle Scout to build a new railing for the steps at Tablyn Park. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tanya Nuss STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 2017 ITEM #: 4 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Kristina Handt, City Administrator AGENDA ITEM : Lions Park Design BACKGROUND: Summarized Public Comment about Priorities at Last Meeting. The Parks Commission reviewed three proposed layouts for Lions Park at its March 20, 2017 meeting. All three options show the field moved to the north to align the first base line with the 45th parallel. The Commission and present public had the following comments regarding the proposed layouts: • Turn volleyball court 90 degrees . • Longevity should be thought of . • Maintain mature trees. • Parking areas could be expensive if underground tanks are needed, and the proposed layout may exceed maximum impervious surfac e standards. • Include pollinator garden. • Picnic area should be installed near playground. • Parking area should be near bleachers. • Path should connect parking to the park. • Bathrooms critical. • There was general consensus that the existing house shown on the layout was unnecessary. • Interest in utilizing proposed northern parking area as skating rink in the winter. • Offer by Kathy Weeks to research and design a plaque for the 45th parallel. • Lighting will need to be researched. Proposal. Miller Architecture has prepared a revised layout in response to the aforementioned comments for the Commission’s review. ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION: The Commission should make recommendation on the proposed layout of Lions Park. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Revised Design. The revised design includes a phasing plan with three phases, as indicated on the proposed layout. Past Work. Miller Architect has provided photos of a ballpark they did in Sartell, Minnesota. These are attached. City Review of Design. The Planning Depar tment, Building Official, Public Works, and Fire Chief has conducted a cursory review of the proposed plan and has the following comments. The proposed layout will also need to be reviewed by all other applicable Staff including but not limited to the City Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, and Building Official. • The proposed parking area to the north still appears to encroach on right-of-way, and proposed parking area to the south does not meet minimum setback requirements. • The proposed sign location will need to meet setback requirements (at least fifteen feet from intersection). • The lots will need to be combined (there are three lots included in this layout). • A landscape frontage strip will be required for the parking lots. • Two more accessible parking spaces are required (one per 24 parking spaces). • Variance will be required for any new accessory structure not meeting minimum setback requirements (50 feet minimum). • Variance may be required for maximum impervious surface (39.5% maximum). • Minimum required parking for outdoor recreation facilities is one space per three persons based on maximum occupancy plus one space per employee on the busiest shift, though requireme nts can be waived by the City. Other Plan Comments. Power poles and utility lines will need to be relocated, and Xcel will need to be contacted. Miller has proposed eliminating two fire hydrants. The Fire Chief and Building Official have both stated that these fire hydrants cannot be removed without being replaced, as they are not only for the structures and vehicles on the property but also for fire protection on adjoining properties as well. Lighting will need to be addressed. Trees. A Google Earth image has been provided to indicate current tree locations. FISCAL IMPACT: Budget. The proposed budget is not included in the packet but will be available at the meeting. The 2016-2020 CIP included $40,000 for grading the field at Lions Park. The 2017-2021 CIP include s $150,000 for improvements to Lions Park. The total request therefore was $190,000. The Park Dedication Fund had a balance of $975,532.05 at the end of 2016 Miller’s not to exceed cost is $27,500. In addition, the cost of the survey for the Lions Park was $3,685 (including location of the 45th parallel. This w ould leave approximately $158,815 available for improvements in the $190,000 budget. ATTACHMENTS: • Lions Park Proposed Layout • Google Earth Image of Lions Park • Pictures of Sartell Ballpark Designed by Miller Architects 320.251.4109 | 320.251.4693 fx 3335 West St Germain Street PO Box 1228 St Cloud, MN 56302 © Copyright, Miller Architects & Builders, LLC63 - PRESENTATION : Plotted on 4/11/17 at 2:53 PM - /Users/brh/Public/Miller Projects/37003•Lake Elmo LP Baseball Field/LAKE ELMO-PRELIM DN4.pln SHEET NO. P-104 LIONS PARK BASEBALL FIELD FIELD RECONFIGURATION LAKE ELMO, MN 02/20/2016 20'-0"60'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " ICE RINK W/ BOARDS (SEASONAL) 45TH PARALLEL MONUMENT RELOCATE EXISTING VOLLEYBALL COURT NEW VOLLEYBALL COURT NEW 'LIONS PARK' SIGN CAP & REMOVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTSCAP & REMOVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS E GV GV H YD GV S 0 0 ° 0 7 ' 4 3 " E 3 4 6 . 6 1 36TH STREET NORTH LA V E R N E A V E N U E N O R T H S89°51'21"W 389.90 S 0 0 ° 0 6 ' 0 6 " W 4 3 1 . 1 6 S75°50'00 " W 1 2 3 . 8 2 S89°23'19"E 91.55 S72°39'0 7 " W 1 8 8 . 4 1 45TH PARALLEL EX. TENNIS COURTS 24 0 ' 250 ' 240'SN A C K S P/A B O O T H DUGOUT DU G O U T BATTING C A G E BATTING C A G E 36 PARKING SPACES 36 PARKING SPACES BLEACHERS BL E A C H E R S MENSWOMENS EX. JUNGLE GYM EX. MERRY GO ROUNDEX. BASKETBALL COURT EX . B I T U M I N O U S P A T H BULLPEN BU L L P E N SW I N G S E T WARM-UP AREA BLE A C H E R SBL E A C H E R S GR A V E L P A T H GRAVEL PATH POLLINATOR GARDENS WELCOME CORNER PICNIC PAVILLION PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PATH (BY CITY) GR A V E L P A T H PARK LAWN PARK LAWN R A I N G A R D E N BLEACHERS PHASE I: BASEBALL FIELD • RE-GRADE FIELD • PERIMETER FENCE • GRAVEL WARNING TRACK • GRAVEL INFIELD • DUGOUT • BULLPENS • UPDATED LIGHTING RELOCATE VOLLEYBALL COURTS DEMO EXISTING CONCESSIONS NEW SOUTH PARKING LOT PHASE II: CONCESSIONS & RESTROOMS DEMO EXISTING ARTS HOUSE NEW NORTH PARKING LOT PHASE III: NW CORNER • NEW PICNIC PAVILION • POLLINATOR GARDENS • WELCOME SIGN • WALKING PATHS H YD PLANTED AREA RELOCATE, ABANDON, OR BURY OVERHEAD POWER-LINES AS NEEDED 0 10'20'40' 1" = 20'1 BASEBALL FIELD RECONFIGURATION NORTH STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 2017 ITEM #: 5 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines BACKGROUND: The Parks Commission recommended a Parks Development Policy Plan be developed as an item on the 2017 Work Plan. The Commission reviewed a drafted policy at its last meeting and provided the following feedback: • Concern that having such guidelines obligates the City to construct a park, even when funding is not available. There was specific concern about indicating how much should be spent on a neighborhood park within the Guidelines. • Suggestion that Staff do research in to how other cities determine the order in which neighborhood parks are developed. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: The Commission should review the proposed Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines and Staff research and consider whether or not these Guidelines should be adopted. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Other Cities’ Neighborhood Park Development Process. Staff contacted a number of comparable cities to see how they determine the order in which neighborhood parks are developed: • Hugo does not have a written policy. Rather, they are of the opinion that if a developer would like to see a neighborhood park in a certain development be constructed in a certain amount of time, they encourage the developer to take on this task but don’t allow the funds used to be taken from park dedication funds. • Orono indicated that they do not have a policy but also have not had to deal with this issue often, as it is rare to see new developments happening concurrently. However, it was indicated that when developers want parks put in within a certain amount of time, the developer pays for the amenity without park dedication funds being used. • Rogers indicated they also do not have a written policy. They use precedent instead of policy. They generally spend about $200,000 a park and include 2-5 or 5-12 amenities based on the size of the park. They have had homeowners associations offer to pay for extra amenities, and often that will move a neighborhood up in the list of priorities. • Victoria has an unwritten policy that indicates that when a neighborhood is 60% complete that the park should be built. The Capital Improvement Plan is utilized to avoid conflicts. • Mound did not run in to the same issues when their city was developing because of their size. They have many parks and so are taking a different approach with undeveloped parks and developing them in to dog parks or community gardens. Amended Guidelines Attached For Reference. Based on concerns raised by the Parks Commission and after doing further research in to neighborhood park development processes of other cities, Staff would not recommend adopting such guidelines. However, if the Commission wishes to go forth with recommending adoption of the Guidelines, Staff has included with this report amended draft guidelines for review. Park Equipment and Amenities Guidelines. Staff had drafted guidelines for park equipment and amenities placed within City parks, and this was discussed only briefly at the last meeting. Does the Commission wish to recommend adopting such guidelines? As previously discussed, these guidelines can be used to help communicate quality and standards the City would like to see for equipment and amenities installed in a City park. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends that the Commission consider not adopting guidelines for the process for developing neighborhood parks, for reasons previously cited. • Staff recommends that the Commission consider adopting park equipment and amenities guidelines if it so pleases. ATTACHMENTS: • Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines • Park Equipment and Amenities Guidelines City of Lake Elmo Neighborhood Park Development Guidelines I. Purpose. The purpose of this document is to assist the City in prioritizing neighborhood park planning. Neighborhood Park planning is entirely within the discretion of the City and nothing in these guidelines is intended to abrogate that discretion. II. Definitions. For the purpose of these Guidelines, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. a. Neighborhood Park. An undeveloped city-owned piece of land that has been acquired as parkland to be the recreational and social focus of a neighborhood. b. Planning. Researching pricing, obtaining quotes, and incorporating a project in to the City’s Capital Improvement Project Plan. c. Home. A dwelling unit that has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the City’s Building Department. d. Construct. Make the park usable for recreation. III. Planning. Neighborhood Park planning shall not commence until at least one of the following has been determined: a. At least 100 homes are within a half (½) mile search area of the Neighborhood Park. b. Surrounding residents of the Neighborhood Park have petitioned the City to construct a park. IV. Funds Allocated. Funds allocated shall be determined based on the need of amenities within the City and specifically within the neighborhood park search area. Park Equipment and Amenities Guidelines I. Purpose. The purpose of this document is to communicate the minimum level of quality and standards for equipment and amenities placed within City parks. Equipment and amenities placed within a City park is entirely within the discretion of the City and nothing in these guidelines is intended to abrogate that discretion. II. Quality of Materials. All playground equipment shall meet American Standards for Testing and Materials F1487 Public Use Playground Equipment standards. III. Design. All equipment and/or any structures shall reviewed by the Parks Commission and approved by City Council. IV. Surfacing. All playground surfacing shall meet American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. V. Accessibility. All parks shall be designed with appropriate American with Disabilities Act Standards (ADA) and be inclusive where possible. VI. Signage. Park signage should be that of high-quality, long-lasting, durable material. VII. Toilets. Toilets are provided on the conditions that funds and staff are available for their installation, upkeep, and long term maintenance requirements. Use frequency of the park, available funds, and lack of alternative and/or available options for toilets will determine installation. VIII. Lighting. Lighting is provided subject to available resources and funding and aims to assist in providing a safe and secure environment for citizens. Priority is given to parks that are used heavily for recreation that may, without lighting, cause harm to users. IX. Grouping of Recreation Equipment. Equipment shall be grouped where appropriate. X. Planting. Planting shall be in accordance with available budget and environmental guidelines. Landscaping should be that of low water usage, maintenance, in accordance with the City’s Bee Safe Policies and Procedures, and not interfere with utilities. STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 2017 ITEM #: 6 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Camera Protocol Procedure BACKGROUND: At its last meeting, the Parks Commission reviewed a draft Camera Protocol Procedure. The Parks Commission had recommended that the procedure be drafted in response to request from the Friends of Lake Elmo’s Sunfish Lake Park (Friends) that language be included in the Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center Development, Lease, License, and Operating Agreement that would allow the Friends to place cameras in the park for programming purposes consistent with the Camera Protocol Procedure, yet the City does not have such a procedure. The Parks Commission provided the following feedback on the draft procedure presented: • Cameras should not be pointed at trails. o If it is necessary that cameras be pointed at trails, either:  More stringent standards should be set forth in the policy for such requests;  There should be signs in the areas of trails where the camera is filming alerting visitors they may be being filmed; or  The Parks Commission should need to review the request. • Privacy and safety of park visitors should be considered top priority when considering an application for placing cameras within a park. • There should be a limit on the number of cameras in a park at any one time. The Commission was not completely sure what that number should be, though it was suggested that perhaps it could be limited by the number of activities that can be filmed rather than the number of cameras. • The Procedure should include something that states that the Procedure does not abrogate City discretion. • Staff should look in to if other cities allow cameras within their parks and if there is a procedure that regulates that use. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: The Commission should review the revised draft Camera Protocol Procedure and make recommendation at this meeting so that the Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center Development, Lease, License, and Operating Agreement may be reviewed by Council. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Research in to Other Cities. Staff conducted research to see if other city parks allow placement of cameras. It seems that there is an increase in cities placing cameras within parks due to safety concern, but it is uncommon that private entities propose to place cameras within public parks. There are many articles citing that cameras have been useful in helping to prevent and fight crime but also leaves residents feeling it is an invasion of their privacy. Camera Protocol Procedure Amended. The Camera Protocol Procedure has been amended in response to Commission comments outlined above. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should review the attached Camera Protocol Procedure and provide feedback. If no major changes are needed, the Commission may recommend approval of the Procedure. ATTACHMENTS: • Camera Protocol Procedure Camera Protocol Procedure I. Purpose. The purpose of this document is to set forth a procedure for the City when considering the approval of placement of cameras within City parks. Approval of the placement of cameras within a City park is entirely within the discretion of the City and nothing in this Procedure is intended to abrogate that discretion. II. Applicability. This procedure shall apply to any person or entity wishing to place a camera or cameras within a City park for any amount of time. This Procedure shall not apply to activities initiated by the City which require placement of a camera or cameras within a park. This Procedure shall not apply to park visitors with a camera on their person and are photographing the park for personal use. III. Definitions. For the purpose of this Procedure, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. a. Park. Public land and open spaces owned by and located within the City of Lake Elmo dedicated or reserved for recreation purposes. b. Applicant. Any person or entity wishing to place a camera or cameras within a City park which require permission. c. Nature Activities. An event pertaining to nature within a park. May include but is not limited to nesting birds and other wildlife activity, plant growth, and so on. d. Camera. Any device that captures an image, recording, or audio that can be played back live or at a later date or time. IV. Permission Required. Any person or entity requesting to place a camera or cameras within a park must first obtain permission from the City. V. Signage Required. Signage notifying park visitors that cameras are placed throughout the park must be placed in conspicuous locations throughout the park when cameras are present. Such signs shall remain erected as long as cameras remain placed within the park, even when cameras are not in operation. The applicant shall be responsible for providing such signs and erecting them in approved locations. VI. Camera Placement. The privacy and safety of park visitors shall be of the utmost priority when evaluating the placement of cameras. Cameras shall be placed so as to focus on images of nature rather than activity of people on the trail. Cameras shall not point towards trails except as specified below. a. If the Applicant wishes to capture activity on trails, the Applicant must erect additional signs to alert visitors they are being filmed. These signs must be erected to clearly delineate where on the trail cameras are filming. The amount of time for which the cameras may be focused on trails is limited to a total of 24 hours, contiguous or otherwise, once every calendar year unless reviewed by the Parks Commission and approved by City Council. The Applicant must clearly delineate as a submittal requirement the date(s) and timeframe(s) that cameras will be focused on trails and must strictly adhere to said timeframe, or the City shall consider this placement a violation as outlined below. VII. Maximum Number. The number of nature activities captured by cameras placed within any one park shall be limited to ten. VIII. Required Submittals. The following must be submitted in order for the City to consider a request by a person or entity requesting to place a camera or cameras within a park: a. A narrative providing a detailed reason for the request; number of cameras to be used; map showing camera placement and focus; amount of time during which cameras will be placed in the park and active; and an explanation of what the images, recording, or audio will be used for. b. Site plan showing proposed location(s) of camera(s) within the park. c. Proposed sign plan indicating location, design and content of sign(s). IX. Review by Staff. The applicant shall submit the above to City Staff for review. The submittal shall be reviewed for consistency with this Procedure and approved or denied based on this consistency. The request shall be submitted ten days prior to the time when the applicant wishes to place cameras within a park. X. City Free of Responsibility for Loss, Theft, or Damage. By requesting and obtaining approval for camera placement within a park, the applicant is agreeing that the city is free of any liability for loss, theft, or damage. XI. Changes to Camera Placement. All changes to camera placement that deviate from the information provided to the City in the request for camera placement must be approved by following the process outlined herein. XII. Violation. If the City finds that the applicant has not maintained consistency with the approved submittal, the City may, at the Applicant’s cost, remove the camera(s) not consistent with the submitted plan. XIII. Annual Report. Staff shall report annually to the Parks Commission on the status of cameras placed within City parks throughout the year. This report shall communicate information provided under required submittals, as well as any violations, and any recommendation on changes to this Procedure STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 2017 ITEM #: 7 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Upcoming Developments BACKGROUND: At its last meeting, the Parks Commission requested to be updated about upcoming developments and expected parkland dedication for each development. Attached is a spreadsheet that provides this information. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: None. Staff is presenting information. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Current Parkland Dedication Fund. According to the Finance Director, the City’s parkland dedication as of 3/16/17 is $975,417. This does not take in to account the funds approved for Savona Park and other items approved for the 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan. RECOMMENDATION: None. Staff is presenting information. ATTACHMENTS: • Upcoming Developments Spreadsheet Development Stage Acreag e Require d Dedicated Parkland Additional Park Funds Required Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat Approval 63.6 10% 15.37 acres (extension of Reid Park, does not include wetland area) None- exceeds required dedication Hidden Meadows 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat Approval 86.52 7%Possible trail Up to 7% of 86.52 acres (possibly less, contingent on decision on trails, total platted area) Gonyea West Sketch Plan 99.1 10%None Possibly none, may be able to use Village Park Preserve additional parkland dedication Southwind (formerly known as Diedrich/Reider/Lenn ar Townhomes) Final Plat Application Received 15.11 10%None Estimated at $90,000 according to Preliminary Plat Staff report Lakewood Crossing Concept Phase approved 3.82 $4500/ acre None $17,190 Upcoming Developments STAFF REPORT DATE: April 17, 2017 ITEM #: 8 TO: Parks Commission FROM: Emily Becker, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Southwind Final Plat BACKGROUND: Southwind Builders has submitted application for Final Plat for a 46 unit townhome development to be located on a site of approximately 15.11 acres situated north of Hunters Crossing (location map attached). ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: None. Staff is presenting information. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat Approval. The development (formerly known as Diedrich Property Preliminary Plat) received Preliminary Plat approval in July of 2015. As long as the proposed Final Plat is generally consistent with and meets conditions of the approved Preliminary Plat, it must be approved. No Parkland Provided. No parkland was proposed in the approved Preliminary Plat. The Preliminary Plat Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated 6/22/15 stated that Staff was supportive of there being no parkland dedicated for public use due to the site and general location not being suitable for a park or any specific trail connections. Current Staff can find no documentation that the Preliminary Plat was proposed to the Parks Commission for review and recommendation. The development is located within a Neighborhood Park Search Area according to the Comprehensive Plan, and Hunters Crossing, the development to the south of Southwind, also did not provide a neighborhood park. At this point, however, because the approved Preliminary Plat did not include a public neighborhood park, the City cannot require that the development include a park. Parkland Dedication Fee. The Applicant would be required to pay a fee in lieu of dedication, which would be 10% of the appraised value of the entire site consisting of 15.11 acres (the assessed value of 1.51 acres). The aforementioned Staff Report indicated this would be around $90,000 based on previous appraisals of land in the area, but the Developer Agreement will need to specify how the value of the land is assessed. RECOMMENDATION: None. Staff is presenting information. ATTACHMENTS: • Location Map • Proposed Final Plat CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS