Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2-17-2021 Parks Packet
NOTICE OF MEETING City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission 3800 Laverne Avenue North February 17, 2021 6:30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Select Chair and Vice Chair 4. Approve Agenda 5. Approve Minutes a) December 21, 2020 minutes 6. Public Comments 7. Select two members for Capital Improvmeent Committee 8. Bee Keeping in Sunfish Lake Park 9. Park Name St. Corix Sanctuary 10. Park Improvement Inventory 11. Communications a) Term Schedule 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 Due to the Corona Virus pandemic and the State of Emergency, the City will be conducting the Parks Commission meeting and public hearings telephonically or by other electronic means. The City Council Chambers will not be open to the public. The City will be broadcasting the meeting via our normal link on the City website - www.lakeelmo.org. • To access the meeting via GoToWebinar: Use www.gotomeeting.com and select “join”. Enter webinar ID 434-675-179 • To access the meeting via telephone: Call +1 (631) 992-3221 when prompted, enter audio access code 190-921-488 MINUTES City of Lake Elmo Parks Commission December 21, 2020 Members Present: Commissioners- Olinger, Weeks, Nightingale, Ames, Schumacher Staff Present: City Planner- Prchal, Public Works Director- Powers The meeting was called to order by Weeks at 6:30 PM. Announcements None Approval of Agenda Agenda was unanimously approved as presented (5-0). Approval of Minutes Schumacher motioned to approve the September 21, 2020 Parks Commission Minutes, Weeks provided a second; passed 4-0 with Olinger abstaining. Public Comments None Hunting in the City. Prchal provided a presentation on the proposed city code changes for allowing/not allowing hunting on public lands within the city. 2013 was the last time hunting language was reviewed by the City. Currently, Lake Elmo follows the MN State Statute 97B and DNR regulations. The County and the City worked in tandem on the last managed hunt by selecting hunters by a lottery system. The selected hunters required a class with the County, provided proof of a hunting license, completed a safety course, and was a resident within city limits. Sunfish Lake Park and the 180 aces are the two largest parcels of city lands. Staff suggested the addition of language to the city code to govern hunting in the City. The commission discussed the pros and cons of partnering with Metro Bowhunters to manage a hunt in the future. DNR does not manage hunts but could assist with the city code language should council adopt it. Ames questioned including the 180 acres (location is north of the PW building) because it is not a city park. Powers expressed his concern for the need of language in the city code to support city regulation and only be allowed with council resolution. Weeks would like to see hunting as a way of population control. The commission discussed what conditions should be met when a hunt would be needed, use of weapon, insurance, and requirements for hunting. Ames stated that if the goal is to thin the heard, he is not concern with who does it, as long as the goal is met. Ames motioned that there be no hunting allowed in city parks or on city land with the exception of when it has been determined that a controlled hunt needs to be conducted and will be passed by City Council with a resolution to be posted in the parks stating that the parks are closed for a controlled hunt; seconded by Schumacher. No discussion, motion unanimously passed 5-0. 2021 Parks Work Plan Prchal provided a presentation on the 2021 Parks Work Plan. Some parks have started to age. This would be the time to look at identifying changes for the needs of the neighborhoods. Examples would include a dog park, pickleball, and trail connectivity. Prchal provided the parks budget information. Schumacher stated that buckthorn has become more prevalent in other parks, not only Sunfish Lake Park. Ames would like to focus specifically at where the trails connect and had funding questions. Weeks questioned how much money will be spoken for by Washington County on their trail project and when the city is responsible for their contribution. Should we conserve money? Powers stated that he has been attending the County meetings and it is on the radar. The County suggested saving $500,000 for this project. Weeks motioned to recommend approval of the parks commission work plan; Olinger provided a second. Discussion focused on having a more specific plan and timeline to stay accountable. Demontreville Park needs to be added to the work plan. Weeks would like to see everyone try to visit the parks on their own throughout the year. Olinger suggested two commission members be assigned to certain parks. Powers requested feedback on the Demontreville Park playground. The slide will be brought to the next meeting for a decision. The CIP will be revisited in April or May. The commission agreed to evaluate buckthorn in all the parks. Nightingale suggested using Survey Money to see how the residents want to see the parks used. Powers also needs feedback for the Pebble Park tennis court. Motion unanimously passed 5-0. Schiltgen Farm Concept PUD Prchal provided a presentation on the Schiltgen Farm Concept PUD. It was denied back in June mainly due to a proposed roundabout. The plan has been amended. There is a trail plan by the developer and proposed townhomes on narrow lots. Prchal went into more detail on the proposed sidewalks, trails, and requirements. Staff believes it would be worth inquiring about an undeveloped 32 acre parcel located east of the VFW Park from the property owner on the site that could possibly accommodate a 10-15 acre Community Park. Weeks suggested having the developer provide an HOA Park, “I don’t know if it is feasible for us to recommend purchase of private property to meet their land dedication requirement. With land sitting idle until funding became available takes away from the tax base with lost revenue due to more property we set aside for park land.” The commission continued discussion on the trail system and agreed that it is more a connectivity issue. Olinger would like to see the main barn preserved as a historical marker. Ames stated that some of this is outside our purview, such as sidewalks and barns, which is code or for the Planning Commission. The commissioners were in agreement that they need more clarity. Ames motioned to send the Concept Plan back to the developer for clarity around planning for trail connectivity to existing city trails and to the old village, as well as, planning for park recreational needs of the expected residents of the neighborhood so the commission can adequately guide the developer in this proposal; Schumacher provided a second. Discussion regarding the third bullet item on the presentation that states ‘all trail shown on the development are available for public use’. Olinger friendly amended the motion to include: all trails shown on the Concept Plan should be available for public use and recommend that future trail systems are required to be public, not private, as a city standard. Motion unanimously passed 5-0. SHIP Grant Prchal provided a presentation on the grant. The granting was for bike repair stations possibly at Sunfish Lake Park and Ivywood Park or Hammes Park. The project cost is estimated at $3000 with a 10% financial match from the City. It is a stand with tools to allow you to tighten your chain or break and does have an air pump. Ames feels it would be great at Sunfish but suggested the other be installed at Lions Park. Weeks suggested installation at Reid vs. Lions. Olinger stated that she would feel it would be beneficial downtown, such as the library. Prchal stated that we should hear next month if we were awarded the grant and if we receive two repair stations. Ames motioned to recommend the placement of two bike repair stations contingent on the awarding of the SHIP Grant with one location at Sunfish Lake Park and the other location to be determined among several locations that the parks commission is evaluating; Olinger provided a second. This was recommended by a 5-0 vote. January 20, 2021 Meeting Agenda 1) Park Name – St. Croix Sanctuary Communications a) Sally Manzara Nature Center Budget b) Attendance Record and Term schedule. There is one vacancy on the commission. The Commission had a discussion between themselves about buckthorn and the ice skating rink. Warming house will remain closed due to COVID regulations. Meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rebecca McGuire, Deputy Clerk STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM: Capital Improvement Committee TO: Parks Commission SUBMITTED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner BACKGROUND: The City recently established a Capital Improvement Committee at its February 2, 2021 meeting. Two members from the Parks Commission should be selected/volunteer to join this Committee. The city previously had five committees (Environment, Finance, Human Resources, Maintenance Advisory and Public Safety) comprised of residents who provide recommendations to the council and staff when requested. These committees have met a varying amount of times over the last few years. The finance committee met most frequently with about 4-5 meetings each year, the environment and human resources committees met the least at only once in 2020, and the public safety and maintenance advisory committees met 2-3 times in 2020. In addition to the infrequent meetings, most of the committees struggled to fill their membership positions. ISSUE BEFORE PARKS COMMISSION: Which Park Commissioners would like to join the Capital Improvement Committee? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The City eliminated these five committees and instead created a Capital Improvement Committee. This was done to increase the benefit received from the volunteers as well as provide a more meaningful experience for those who dedicate their time to the city. Breaking down the “silos” by bringing folks together with varied areas of interest to give input on some of the biggest expenses of the city, should provide a more comprehensive set of recommendations. This configuration will also help address some of the challenges of arriving at a decision when folks are only looking at it from a certain perspective. For example, its not the role of the Maintenance Advisory Committee to decide how to fund trucks or fire engines; the funding source is the responsibility of the Finance Committee. Conversely, it is not the Finance Committee’s role to decide if a piece of equipment is needed as that is the role of the other committees. Merging the committees together into one will allow all aspects of a project to be considered at once. The Capital Improvement Committee would meet a handful of times from late spring through summer to review, prioritize, and provide recommendations on projects in the annual Capital Improvement Plan. The lead staff person would be the Finance Director with assistance from the Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Planner as needed when their projects are being considered. Committee membership is proposed to be 11 people: 2 members of the Parks Commission 9 residents of Lake Elmo Their prosed annual work plan would look something like this: May: Orientation and Update on current CIP Begin identifying projects for CIP update June: Review existing CIP projects and identify new projects. (Site visits, if necessary )Review Financial Capacity and conditions Evaluate funding Options July: Evaluate funding options Evaluate and program capital projects Prioritize capital projects Select projects, schedules and assign a funding source August: Hold Public Hearing with Planning Commission Make CIP recommendation to City Council ATTACHMENT: •Committee Policies Capital Improvement Committee Operating Policies & Procedures Scope & Purpose: To aid the City Council and staff in the development of the annual Capital Improvement Plan; a plan for the city’s infrastructure (such as streets, parks and utility systems), vehicles, equipment and public buildings. The plan shall include estimated cost, the need for each improvement, funding source and the financial impact that the improvement will have on the city. Committee Duties: A. In conjunction with the City Staff and Parks Commission (as applicable), develop, review and recommend projects for the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. B. Review financial capacity and conditions; evaluate funding options. C. Prioritize projects in the Capital Improvement Plan. D. Hold a public hearing at a joint meeting with the Planning Commission before finalizing a recommendation to the City Council. E. Annually elect a chair and vice chair to preside over meetings. Meeting Schedule: Monthly (or as needed) May through August Committee Composition: 2 Members of the Parks Commission (terms to run consecutively with their term on Parks Commission) 9 residents of Lake Elmo (staggered three year terms) PARKS COMMISSION COMMUNICATION DATE: February 17, 2021 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: Sally Manzara Interpretive Nature Center – Bee Keeping SUBMITTED BY: Ben Prchal, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Ken Roberts, Planning Director _________________________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND: The Friends of Lake Elmo approached the City with the request to keep bees on their leased acre within Sunfish Lake Park. They would be partnering with a group of volunteers who had established and maintained a honeybee program at the Warner Nature Center (In May Township). Being that the Warner Nature Center has closed they are seeking a new location for their honeybee program. An ideal location for them is the Sally Manzara Nature Center in Sunfish Lake Park. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: Does the Commission believe honeybees should be kept within the Park and does the Commission believe electrical fencing for the bees would be appropriate? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: City Review: From Staffs perspective, should this request occur on private property it would be approved. However, because the request relates to public property owned by the City, the City as the responsible property owner has the ability to place additional conditions or deny the request. Similar to a private property owner leasing land to another private party the owner has the authority to dictate changes and uses on the property. The entire chapter of the Honey Bee ordinance has been attached but there are certain sections that are more relevant than others. § 95.128 COLONY DENSITY. (A) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of colonies on any lot within the city, based upon the size of the apiary lot: (1) Lots three-quarters of 1 acre or larger but smaller than 2 and 1/2 acres: 4 colonies; (2) Two and one-half acre lot or larger but smaller than 5 acres: 6 colonies; (3) Five acres or larger: no restriction. (B) Colonies must be setback 25 feet from the property line of an adjacent occupied residential lot. Staff is inclined to believe they would not be regulated on the number of hives, due to the size of the park. However, with that said, being that the City is the owner of the property there would be an opportunity for the City to apply conditions. Should the City choose to allow the honeybees within the park Staff will be recommending a license agreement which could then establish a limit on the number of hives or apply other desired conditions. At this time they are requesting two full hives and 5 smaller hives for queen production. Staff has no reason to believe the number of hives would need to be reduced. § 95.129 PERMIT REQUIRED. (A) No beekeeping may occur on properties of less than 5 acres unless the city issues a permit to the beekeeper on that specific property. The permit will be valid for 2 growing seasons. Staff reads the above reverenced code to read that if the property is over 5 acres in size that a permit would not be required. With that said, subsequent points under Section 95.129 would not be required. But again, with the City being the property owner there is an opportunity to require the follow through of the requirements of a permit. They are also requesting to install a fence around the colonies. Staff believes this makes sense and would recommend installing a fence around the hives. As it stands today they are requesting to use electric fencing for the hives. This is a common fence type for bee hives as it is the most effective at warding off would be hive robbers. Fencing also helps keep bystanders at a distance from the entrance of the hive. §154.205 FENCING REGULATIONS G. Prohibited Fencing. Barbed wire and electric fencing are prohibited in platted areas. Being that the park is not a platted area Staff believes they could use electric fencing. Though, being on City property non-electric fencing could be required. LEASE AGREEMENT: The City has a lease agreement established for the operation of the Nature Center and a defined area for them to operate within. Should the City choose to allow bee hives within in the park Staff recommends they only be kept on the leased area. They are currently requesting they be kept on the leased area. Building Site Description The Nature Center Building Site is defined as one acre (a square plot approximately 207 feet on a side) oriented with the edges north-south and east-west, with its eastern side centered on the existing fire hydrant which is located just west of the Sunfish Lake Park south entrance drive just before it turns into the parking lot, and its northern side centered on the southernmost of the boulders which form the southern boundary of the existing parking lot. (Staff has done their best to provide a depiction of what this actually looks like. Please bear in mind some inaccuracies are created when overlaying an image of an aerial image.) FISCAL IMPACT: There may be a fiscal impact to the City should the City request the City Attorney assist in preparing a license agreement. Keeping honey bees within the park would not increase the liability of the City. OPTIONS: 1) Recommend approval of Bee keeping within Sunfish Lake Park. 2) Recommend approval of Bee keeping within Sunfish Lake Park with conditions. 3) Recommend denial of Bee keeping within Sunfish Lake Park. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend one way or another as to if honeybees should be kept within Sunfish Lake Park. ATTACHMENTS: • Bee Keeping Ordinance • Fence Ordinance Requested location. KEEPING OF BEES § 95.125 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. APIARY. The assembly of1 or more colonies of bees at a single location. BEEKEEPER. A person who owns or has charge of 1 or more colonies of bees. BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT. Anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors. COLONY. An aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, 1 queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey. HIVE. The receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose. HONEY BEE. All life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera (African subspecies and Africanized hybrids are not allowed). LOT. A contiguous parcel of land under common ownership. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) § 95.126 PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish certain requirements for beekeeping within the city, to avoid issues that might otherwise be associated with beekeeping in populated areas. (A) Compliance with this subchapter shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper’s efforts to abate any previous nuisance. (B) Compliance with this section shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony violates applicable ordinances regarding public health, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper’s compliance with acceptable standards of practice among hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) § 95.127 STANDARDS OF PRACTICE. These standards of practice apply only to lots smaller than 5 acres. (A) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which must be kept in sound and usable conditions. (B) Each beekeeper must ensure that a convenient source of water is available within10 feet of each colony at all times that the colonies remain active outside the hive. (C) Each beekeeper must ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage robbing by other bees that are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other vermin-proof container. (D) Each beekeeper shall maintain his or her beekeeping equipment in good condition, including keeping the hived painted if they have been painted but are peeling or flaking, and securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarms. (E) Honey bee colonies may only be kept on lots three-quarters of an acre or larger. (F) Each beekeeper is allowed to make in person sales of honey from the beekeeper’s residence as long as the following standards are met: (1) The beekeeper must live on the apiary lot; (2) All honey sold in person on the residential premise must be produced by the beekeeper’s hives that are located on the subject residential premise; (3) No products may be sold in person at the residence except honey and honey related products produced from hives on the premise; (4) No outside storage or display of products or merchandise; (5) No traffic that is greater than the residential level of the neighborhood; (6) No separate business entrance; (7) All signage must comply with city sign regulations; (8) Not more than 15% of the total gross floor area of the residence or 200 square feet, whichever is less is devoted to making, storing, and selling honey; (9) No activity or equipment may be used that creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odor, or electric or television interference is permitted if it is detectable by adjacent neighbors; and (10) No nonresident employees are permitted. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) Penalty, see § 95.999 § 95.128 COLONY DENSITY. (A) No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of colonies on any lot within the city, based upon the size of the apiary lot: (1) Lots three-quarters of 1 acre or larger but smaller than 2 and 1/2 acres: 4 colonies; (2) Two and one-half acre lot or larger but smaller than 5 acres: 6 colonies; (3) Five acres or larger: no restriction. (B) Colonies must be setback 25 feet from the property line of an adjacent occupied residential lot. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) Penalty, see § 95.999 § 95.129 PERMIT REQUIRED. (A) No beekeeping may occur on properties of less than 5 acres unless the city issues a permit to the beekeeper on that specific property. The permit will be valid for 2 growing seasons. (B) A beekeeping permit will only be issued if: (1) The permit application documents the satisfaction of all applicable items found in §§ 95.125 through 95.130 of the City Code; and (2) Notices have been mailed to all homes within 150 feet of the applicant’s property lines. (a) If there are objections received within 10 days of mailing the notices, then the permit application must be considered by the City Council. (b) If there are no objections received within 10 days of mailing the notices, then the permit application will be processed by city staff. It will not be referred to the City Council for consideration. (C) Permits are non-transferable and do not run with the land. (D) A permit constitutes a limited license granted to the beekeeper by the city and in no way creates a vested zoning right. (E) By signing the permit, the beekeeper acknowledges that he or she shall defend and indemnify the city against any and all claims arising out of keeping the bees on the premises. (F) Beekeeping permit fees shall be as established by the city council. (G) All standards of practice and colony density standards must be met in order to issue a permit. (H) If the standards of practice are not maintained subsequent to issuance of a beekeeping permit, the permit may be revoked by the city. (I) Beekeeping training is required for the beekeeper prior to issuance of an initial beekeeping permit by the city. (1) Either provide a certificate of completion from a honeybee keeping course from the University of Minnesota or from Century College; (2) Request consideration for having completed a comparable course from another institution or instructor; (3) Request consideration for substituting equivalent experience for the honeybee keeping course; or (4) Provide a letter from a current beekeeping instructor at the University of Minnesota, Century College, or other educational institution offering similar beekeeping courses that states that the permit applicant has gained through other means a substantially similar knowledge base to one that could be gained through appropriate beekeeping courses at the University of Minnesota or Century College. (J) Any beekeeper wishing to make in person sales of honey from their home according to the standards of practice section must so indicate on the annual permit. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) Penalty, see § 95.999 § 95.130 APPLICATION. Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such information as required by the city. Among other things, the application shall contain the following information: (A) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the bees. (B) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed apiary, the number of hives, setbacks from apiary to property lines and surrounding buildings (including houses and buildings on adjacent lots), and the location, type, and height of any related flyways. (C) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the bees in accordance with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this article and grounds for cancellation of the permit. (D) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) § 95.999 PENALTY. Any person who shall violate the provisions of §§ 95.125 through 95.130 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be penalized in accordance with § 10.99. (Ord. 08-100, passed 2-18-2014) VII-1 ARTICLE VII. GENERAL REGULATIONS § 154.200 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Article is to establish regulations for activities that may occur in many zoning districts or in association with a variety of land uses, including parking, signage, and activities within yards, to promote the orderly development or use of land and minimize conflicts among land uses. (Ord. 08-078, passed 5-07-2013) § 154.201 APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this Article shall be applied to all zoning districts and shall be in addition to the requirements in any specific zoning district. A permit shall not be issued unless all applicable general regulations are met. (Ord. 08-078, passed 5-07-2013) § 154.202 PERMITS REQUIRED. Permits are required for all changes in use and all development activities, with the exception of signs, which shall be governed by the specific requirements of Section 154.212 as may be applicable. (Ord. 08-078, passed 5-07-2013) (Ord. 08-152, passed 10-01-2016) § 154.203 ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Essential services as defined by this Ordinance are permitted in any district, provided that a site plan for any new or expanded service facility is filed with the Planning Department. The City Council may require site plan review of large facilities, upon the recommendation of the Planning Director. (Ord. 08-078, passed 5-07-2013) § 154.205 FENCING REGULATIONS. A. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the regulation of fences in the City of Lake Elmo and to prevent fences from being erected that would be a hazard to the public, an unreasonable interference with the uses and enjoyment of neighboring property or are incompatible with existing uses and other zoning restrictions. B. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: VII-2 Permanent Fence. Fences that are installed in a fixed or enduring manner that are not intended for a seasonal or temporary purpose. Temporary Fence. Fences that are installed and removed on a seasonal basis, such as snow fences, garden fences and seasonal recreational fences, such as hockey boards. C. Permit Required. 1. Permanent Fence. No permanent fence shall be erected without first obtaining a fence permit. Application shall be made to the Planning Director. The fee shall be established by the City’s Fee Schedule. The Planning Director is authorized to issue a fence permit if the application indicates that the fence will be in compliance with this Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that the Planning Director was in error. The appeals shall follow the procedure outlined in §31.01. 2. Temporary Fence. Temporary fencing that complies with subsection (F) and all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance shall be exempt from permit requirements. D. General Requirements. All fences erected in the City of Lake Elmo are subject to the following requirements: 1. Maintenance. All fences shall be property maintained with respect to appearance and safety. Fences that remain in a state of disrepair for an extended period of time shall constitute a nuisance per §96.03. 2. Face of Fence. The finished side of any fence or wall must face abutting property or street rights of way. 3. Fence Materials. Permitted fence materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood, wrought iron, vinyl, composite material, steel, aluminum, chain-link, and in cases of temporary fencing only, materials that are consistent with temporary fencing as regulated under subsection (F) 4. Traffic Obstruction. No fence or wall shall obstruct a motorist’s or a pedestrian’s safe view from the driveway or street. 5. Location. a) Fences may be installed on any portion of a lot subject to the height restrictions of §154.205.E and may be installed up to the property line. Any portion of the fence and all footing material shall by fully on the respective property and not encroach or cross over onto the neighboring property. It is also the responsibility of the property owner to have the property lines identified. b) All pertinent property pins shall be visible upon inspection for fences installed within one foot (12 inches) of a property boundary. c) In the case of a dispute, the City may require a survey to establish the boundary line of a property. 6. Easement Encroachment. An easement encroachment agreement must be approved by the Planning Director or his/her designee after review and approval VII-3 from the City Engineer or his/her designee, along with a fence permit, for any fence that will be installed within a City easement. 7. Swimming Pools. All swimming pools shall be enclosed with required fencing per §151.085. E. Fence Height and Design 1. Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side (corner) yard setback or any required setback form a public right-of-way may not exceed forty-eight (48) inches (4 feet.) in height and must be 50% open to air and light. The fence must also be setback 20 feet. extending from the front corner lot pin or ROW. 2. Residential and Mixed-Use Districts. No fence shall exceed six feet (6’) in height, and shall be subject to the design requirements of §154.205.E.3. 3. Commercial and Industrial Districts. No fence or wall shall exceed eight feet (8’) in height. Fences that exceed eight feet (8’) in height require a conditional use permit. F. Temporary Fences 1. Height and Performance. Temporary fences shall comply with the fence height standards of subsection (E). Temporary fences shall be at least 40% open to air and light. If unable to be at least 40% open to air and light, temporary fences shall not exceed forty-eight inches (4 feet.) in height. The fence must also be setback 20 feet. extending from the front lot pin or ROW. 2. Duration and Limitation a. No snow fence or posts shall be installed prior to October 1, and must be removed prior to April 15. b. Seasonal recreational fencing intended for winter sports, such as hockey or broomball shall not be installed prior to October 1, and must be removed prior to April 15. 3. Location. Snow fences shall be set back at least 50 feet from any south or east property line, or such additional distance as may be required to prevent the accumulation of snow on public streets or adjoining property, as determined by the Public Works Director. G. Prohibited Fencing. Barbed wire and electric fencing are prohibited in platted areas. H. Agricultural Exemption. Fences constructed on parcels in excess of 5 acres for the keeping of horses; and fences constructed on parcels in excess of 10 acres are specifically exempted from the provisions of this Section. Any such agricultural fencing shall be at least 75% open to air and light. (Ord. 08-086, passed 7-16-2013; Am. Ord 08-140, passed 7-5-2016; Am. Ord. 08-154, passed 10-4-2016) STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 2021 ITEM #: TO: Parks Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Naming of St. Croix Sanctuary Park BACKGROUND: In total, the park area in St. Croix Sanctuary is 6.37 acres which consists of a playground, small field, and wooded area. The park currently does not have a sign to provide the park with a formal name and the City is now looking to name the park. Similar to the previous parks, the City posted a poll and notification on the City website requesting suggestions for a park name. Staff has organized the suggested names to assist with the selection process. ISSUE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL: Which name(s) would the Park Commission like to recommend to the City Council for the park in St. Croix Sanctuary? ANALYSIS: The City received less names that what had previously been provided for other parks. Nonetheless, the suggested names are provided below for review. Suggested Names • Hide-a-way Park • Hidden Knoll Park • Far Park • Hidden Gem Park STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Being that only four names have been provided, the Park Naming Policy allows the Commission to recommend additional names. If one name cannot be chosen, up to three name suggestions would be appropriate to bring to City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Park Naming Policy • St. Croix Sanctuary Park City of Lake Elmo Policy and Procedure for Naming City Parks, Trails, Recreational Areas, and Facilities Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to establish a standard procedure for the naming and renaming of parks, trails, recreational areas and facilities owned and/or operated by the City of Lake Elmo. This policy will guide name recognition and establish a uniform process. The Parks Commission shall be responsible for providing a recommended name to the City Council. The City Council will have the final say for the approved name. Objectives: • To name City parks, trails, recreational areas and facilities with the intent of enhancing the community by provoking a sense of place. • Ensure that parks and recreational areas are easily identified and located with names that are consistent with the values and characteristics of the City of Lake Elmo. • Assure the quality of the title/name, so that it will serve the purpose of the City in a permanent manner. • Encourage public participation and input in order to fully represent the best interest of the community. Criteria for Submitting a Name: When a proposed name is presented for review, City Staff will first vet the name against the criteria listed below. If a name does not fall into one of the categories listed below or is deemed to be derogatory or offensive in nature, the consideration will be thrown out. It should also be known that the City will not consider names that are directly named after a specific neighborhood or subdivision. The Park name shall not: • Park Names shall not be duplicated. • The City will not name parks directly after a development. • For example, the park within Wildflower shall not be called Wildflower Park. However, rose park, fox glove park, etc. would be acceptable. Categories for potential park Names: • An outstanding feature of the area. (example: hill, river, vegetation) • Geographical location of the park such as a street name. • Naming after an individual (living or non-living) or organization. The City may require additional information to further enforce that the individual has significantly contributed to the improvement of the Lake Elmo Parks system. • A person (living or non-living) or group who significantly contributed to the acquisition or development of park/facilities, who provided an exceptional service in the interest of the park system, or for the community as a whole. When naming after a person or persons, written documentation of approval by next of kin is required (if available/possible) as part of the proposal. • A standard for significant contribution shall consist of providing at least 50% of the cost to develop or acquire the land. • The City understands there are other categories that a name could be pulled from and would not exclude its consideration. Procedure: The City has created a process that will provide consistency for naming or re-naming City Parks. In general a submission will come in, go through staff review and approval, undergo a Parks Commission review, and end with final approval or denial from the City Council. The City would like to encourage residents to stay interested and voice their opinions during the meetings when the name is being considered. Step 1) At the time that the City is ready to name or rename a park, notification will be put in the Fresh, City Facebook, and or use other measures as appropriate. The City will seek name suggestions from the City Council or Commissions, City residents, Community leaders or organizations interested in proposing a name for a park, trail, recreational area or facility. The applicant should either request a Naming Policy form from the City Clerk or download the form from the City Website on the Parks page. After the form has been filled out it will need to be submitted to the City Planner to review against the criteria. Once the timeframe for receiving names has closed, Staff will begin the review process. Step 2) Staff will notify the applicant if the proposed name has or has not met the requirements. After a proposed name has been approved by Staff, the applicant will be informed when the name is going to be discussed by the Parks Commission. After the Commission discussion, the recommendation(s) will move onto the City Council for final approval or denial. Step 3) Once the City Council votes to approve a name, the name of the park shall be confirmed by passing a resolution. Renaming: The intent of naming is for permanent recognition, the renaming of parks and facilities is discouraged. Though, the City understands that renaming a park, trail, or facility may be necessary to create more cohesiveness throughout the City. It is recommended that efforts to change a name become subject to crucial examination so as not to diminish the original justification for the name or discount the value of the prior contributors. Renaming a park will follow the same procedure stated above. µ0 520260Feet Linden Ave N56th St N 58th St N Lilly Ave NCreated By: Planning Department 2021 Trail Classification(s) 5,358 ft. of public walking trailPublic Walking Trail Private Walking Trail St. CroixSanctuaryWalking Trails STAFF REPORT DATE: February 17, 2020 ITEM #: TO: Parks Commission FROM: Ben Prchal, City Planner AGENDA ITEM: Park Inventory REVIEWED BY: Marty Powers, Public Works Director BACKGROUND: The Parks Commission recently reviewed the work plan for 2021 and one item was to establish a “Park Use Plan” and a “Park Needs Assessment.” Staff believes these two items somewhat overlap and will be reviewed in tandem as the Park Inventory is being conducted. Before snow arrived City Staff was able to visit some of the parks and take pictures of the amenities for this review. Each park has received periodic improvements over the years but now some of them have begun to show their age. Another objective of the Commission was to review possible trail connections. Staff has also prepared a section to further identify additional trail connections. ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION: Which park(s) or projects would the Parks Commission like to recommend to the City Council for improvement? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The City currently has 24 parks. Some of them have equipment while others have not received any recreational equipment or improvements. The parks have been broken into categories to help focus in on different objectives. Due to the number of parks City Staff has chosen to only review those with recreational amenities. Please bear in mind that the following comments are only Staffs perception from the time of visit and additional comments from users have not been gathered at this time. Due to the age of Ivywood, Hammes, Pilot, Firefly, and Lions Park Staff will not be doing a review of them. Parks Carriage Station Park: - The park and equipment is in good shape. Demontreville Park: - Park is in relatively good shape. - Ball field not completely level and the grass area does not drain well - Play equipment is around 30 years old and is showing safety concerns. The coating is chipping, creating sharp cut and scratch hazards. The chipped coating now allows open metal which is starting to rust. The slide is cracked, does not meet safety standards and needs to be replaced or removed. - The basketball courts are not in good shape and a resurfacing should be considered. This court could serve a dual purpose of basketball and pickleball. - The parking lot is good and only needs routine crack fill and seal coat maintenance. Parks With Equipment Nature Parks Carriage Station Demontreville Wildlife Park Demontreville Park Goose Lake Park *Firefly Park Heights Park *Hammes Park Heritage Park *Ivywood Park Homestead Park Kleis Park Sunfish Lake Park *Lions Park Lake Jane Hills Park Pebble Park Legion Ave. Park *Pilot Park Reid Park Ridge Park St. Croix Sanctuary Stonegate Park Tablyn Park Tana Ridge Park VFW Park Green represents parks that are currently under review. The *asterisk represents parks that will not be reviewed. Kleis Park: - Relatively good shape. - The playground is starting to show signs of age. A fallen tree damaged half the swing set. The damaged section has been removed. Pebble Park: - Pebble Park has many amenities to offer which should satisfy many recreational needs. - The ball fields are small but in good shape. - With there being more than one playground there is a good range for children. However, one playset is starting to show age with sun fading the plastic roof structures. Staff does not believe there is a reason to improve the equipment at this time. - The basketball court is small, needs a new surface to improve the playability or it could be removed. - The tennis courts are in fair shape with large cracking. Again, if resurfacing is deemed necessary adding pickleball lines should be considered. Reid Park: - The playground is small but in good shape. - The basketball court is small and the surface could use some maintenance. Ridge Park: - Ridge Park has a decent ball field and the playground is in good shape but located in a low/wet area. The park has a lot of potential for additional improvements or amenities, due to its size and open area. - Parking Area is a very small and graveled. St. Croix Sanctuary: - The playground needs some maintenance items addressed due to vandalism but overall does not need much improvement other than adding a park sign. Stonegate Park: - The play equipment is in good shape as well as the ball field. Tablyn Park: - Tablyn Park is very busy in the winter time with the sliding hill. - The parking lot is small and very often overflowing. Adding parking would benefit the park immensely. - The equipment is aged and is shown by the weathering of the plastic roof structures and slides. The swing are is clearly used due to the ruts under the swings. - The tennis courts have aged with paint thinning, cracking, and rough texture. Resurfacing should be considered. - The basketball court is small but useable. Tanna Ridge: - The Ball Field is in decent shape, but the Soccer Field has been significantly shrunk or will be removed due to the installation of the new City Well #5 being added in the center of it. VFW: - The baseball field is in good shape as well as the bleachers. A new aluminum picnic table is needed to complete the updates and the south/east dug out is scheduled to be rebuilt by the Lake Elmo Baseball Association. Trees: For general appearance some Parks that would benefit from additional trees are Firefly, Hammes, and Lions Park. The additional trees would improve the aesthetics and a provide shade for spectators and park users. Furthermore, as a member of “Tree City USA” there is a community goal of adding trees each year throughout the City. Trail Connections Staff has identified a few areas where trail connections could be made between developments. Hamlet on Sunfish and Tapestry: - There is an outlot within Hamlet on Sunfish that has not yet been built on but could now serve as an entry/exit between the developments. Access through this outlot could link Tapestry to Legacy at North Star and Wildflower. With the trails soon to become public within Hamlet this could create a convenient corridor for the City. - The Hamlet Association currently owns the outlot. With that said, Staff will need to investigate the probability of connection. - Staff estimates the distance from the road to Tapestry is around 320 ft. Inwood and Stonegate: - Currently both neighborhoods have trails however, they do not connect into each other. There is more than one location that a trail could be stubbed in but a clearing is already present through the tree line of Inwood (not a hard surface trail). - Staff estimates the trail from Inwood through the Stonegate Park could be 750 ft. - Stonegate trails are not paved, they are currently a hard pack gravel surface. Staff estimates the length of the Stonegate trails to be 2,309 ft. Paving these trails would improve the amenity but it would not connect an unconnected development, only a new access point. With the buildout of Boulder Ponds, Savona, and Hammes (Northridge Crossing) there is a continuous trail connecting them all. Tana Ridge and Wildflower: - There are trails in both Tana Ridge and Wildflower. Staff expects this trail connection to take longer to achieve due to the fact that there are multiple parties and private property involved. However, it still may be worth planning for should the opportunity arise to establish the connection. - It should also be known that Staff has not reviewed the easement/conservation easement docs. to know if there are any restrictions for new trail development. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is dependent upon project selection and available funds. Staff had thought project selection could be processed in a similar way as Ivywood Park and Firefly Park. A dollar amount would be reserved for subsequent years for improvement and further information could be gathered before one park was definitively chosen before the other. Expected Funds in 2021: Expected Funds in 2021: Legacy at North Star $223,631 (phase 4) Bruggerman OP-PUD 3.32 acres worth of value Park Dedication Fund Balance (2/8/2021) $1,163,839.87 OPTIONS: 1. The Commission may establish some projects for Staff to budget and plan for during the CIP review. 2. Do not identify projects for the CIP. RECOMMENDATION: The Demontriville slide is the only high priority for 2021 playground removal or replacement. If the Park Commission plans to remove or replace the playground in the near future Public Works will not replace the current slide but simply board off its entrance. With no other high priority playground concerns for 2021, staff is not inclined to recommend a full removal and replacement of any other park equipment. Instead it might be more prudent to consider trail connection projects. Painting and resurfacing of tennis courts for pickle ball courts could also be a good improvement to consider. Keep in mind that certain improvements will come from a maintenance budget and not from the park dedication fund. ATTACHMENTS: • City Trail Map/City Park Map ± 0 5,7002,850 Feet Private Trails (6-10' wide) Public Trail (6-10' wide) Public Soft Surface Trails (6-10' wide) City Trail Map Highway 3660th St N Keats Ave NStillwater Blvd NHudson Blvd NInwood Ave NLake Elmo Ave N5th St N 50th St N 15th St N 10th St N 20th St N Lake Jane Trail N 53rd St N27th St N 55th St N Jamaca Ave NDemontreville Trail N34th St N 57th St N 59th St N Ja n e R o a d N 47th St N Island Trail43rd St N 31st St N 39th St N 38th St N 45th St N Kimbro Ave N42nd St N 33rd St N 7th St N 24th St N 51st St N 26th St NHil l Tra i l N 58th St N 32nd St N 30th St N Hi l l t o p A v e N Hidden Bay Trail NJade Trail NLegion Ave N21st St N Ivory Ave NStillwater Lane N 9th St N 12th St N Julep Ave N 44th St N Jewel Ave N 6th S t N 56th St N Jasmine Ave N8th St N37th St N 36th St NJamaca Blvd NKlondike Ave N35th St N Jamley Ave NImperial Ave NIsle Ave NKirkwood Ave NCimarronIvy Ave N 22nd St N Legi o n L a n e NIris Ave NLin den A ve NHytrail Ave NTapestry RoadEagle Point Blvd Lily Ave NJa n e C o u r t NJerome Ave NKelvin Co u r t N Jonquil Trail N Ironwood Trail N 14th St N T a pe s t r y T r a i l Kin d re d Wa y 28th St N Wildflower Drive NKindred Way N Birch Bark Trail N Jack Pine Trail NIvy Court N Jamaca Court N Julep Co u r t N 3rd St Place N Lav e n d e r Ave N Lisbon Ave NHigh l andsCourt NLilac Lane NInnsdale Ave NJuniperCircle N11th St N Lilac Way N 47th St NKeats Ave NIsle Ave NLily Ave NManning Ave N55th St N Highway 36 LisbonAve N32nd St N 39th St N 31st St N 5th St N 32nd St N 50th St N Jamaca Ave N59th St N 57th St NIvy Ave NManning Ave NKelvin Ave NLaverne Ave N37th St N 36th St NDeer Pond Trail NLinden Ave N 16th St N Lily A v e N 3rd St N10th St Lane NLittle Bluest e m Trail N Little Bluestem Trail NHighlands Trail N Highlands Trail NSunfish Lake ParkLayton Ave NLaytonAve NJasper Ave N4th St N L e e w a r d A v e N Whistling Vall ey RoadJanero Ave NJonquil Ave NJane Circle N5th St Lane N Ta p e s t r y H i l l James Ave NTapestry Bend LampertAve NBlazingstar Lane N June Ave N 49th St N Lisbo n A v e Court NIsle Court NWindbreak Trail N 6th St Lane N 40thSt N Marquess Lane NLady Slipp e rRoad NIrish Court NIrvin Circle N57th StCircle NLinden Trail NJulep Way NIrvin Court NJulianneAve NKraft Circle N27th S tCou r t N L a n s i n g A v e N 15th S t C o u r t N Jay Ave N10th StCourt NUpper 7th Pla c e NDeer PondCourt NLangly Court N Jade Court N Langly Ave N44th St Lane N Irwin Ave NCherrywood Trail N Juniper Ave NTapestry Grove Lilac Place N Juno Ave N57th StCove NJa sm i n e A v e Pl a c e N Lower 8th Place N Ivory Court N Irving Blvd NIrving Circle N41st St Circle N Layton Court N59th St Court N Kirkwood Lane N Jerom e A v e Court N Marquess Way NLaverne Court NSunflower Lane N Jade Circle N 30th StCircle N 33rd StLane N Marquess TrailCourt N24t h S t Co u r t N Whistling Valley TrailEagle PointCircle NKi n d r e d C o u r t 22nd Court N Village Parkway N58th St Court NHill Trail Court N Monarch Way NDemontreville Trail Circle N Marquess Trail Circle NLegion LaneCircle N Larksp u rLane N Little Bluestem Circle N Lilac Ave N Legion LaneCourt NInnsdaleAve NLily Ave N51st St N55th St N Innsdale Ave N 28th St N Ivy Ave N35th St N 35th St N Laverne Ave N21st St N 9th Place N 53rd St N Julep Ave NIr onwo o d Tr a i l NInwood Ave NLegion Ave NManning Ave N34th St N 33rd St N Lake Elmo Ave N9th Place N 5th St N 7th St N Jun c o R o a d N Lake Elmo Ave N55th St NJamaca Ave N10th St N City of Woodbury City of Oakdale West LakelandTownship Baytown Township City ofOak ParkHeights City of GrantCity ofPine Springs StillwaterTownship City ofAftonLake Elmo Street and Parks Map µCreated By: Planning Department Map Date: June 2018 0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles LAKEJANEHILLSPARK SUNFISH LAKEPARK LAKE ELMOREGIONALPARK RESERVE EAGLE POINTLAKE LAKE ELMO HORSESHOELAKE ROSELAKE KRAMERLAKE GOOSELAKE STONEGATEPARK ARMSTRONGLAKE RIDGEPARK HEIGHTSPARK TABLYNPARK PEBBLEPARK LAKE JANE OLSONLAKE LAKE DEMONTREVILLE DEMONTREVILLEWILDLIFE PARK KLEISPARK DEMONTREVILLEPARK CLEARLAKE VERONICAPOND TANA RIDGEPARK GOETSCHEL'SPOND CARRIAGESTATIONPARK VFWPARK LIONS PARK REIDPARK HERITAGEPARK DOWNSLAKE HOMESTEDPARK © © ; Ì #1 #2 Carriage Station ParkDemontreville ParkDemontreville Wildlife ParkEaston Village ParkHeights ParkHeritage ParkHomestead ParkKleis ParkLake Jane Hills ParkLegion Ave. N. ParkLions ParkPebble ParkReid ParkRidge ParkSt. Croix's SanctuaryStonegate ParkSunfish Lake ParkTablyn ParkTana Ridge ParkVFW Park Marquess Trail N. and Stillwater Blvd N.5700 Highlands Trail N.7950 Demontreville Trail North 26th St. and Imperial Ave.2700 Block of Lisbon Ave.14th St. and Lake Elmo Ave.5285 Jamaca Blvd.Jamaca Ave. N. and 42nd St.Legion Ave. N. and Legion Lane N.3525 Laverne Ave. N.8160 Lake Jane Trail N.11430 - 30th Street N.15th St. and Inwood Ave.Lily Ave. and 58th St.750 Jasmine10000 Stillwater Lane N.8735 Stillwater Blvd.4525 Lily Ave.3675 Layton Ave. ST. CROIX'SSANCTUARY LEGION AVE. N. PARK EASTONVILLAGE PARK ;City Hall3800 Laverne Avenue N Ì Public Works Building 3445 Ideal Ave NFire StationsStation No. 13510 Laverne Ave N Station No. 24259 Jamaca Ave N © HAMMESPARK General Ledger GL Fund Balances User: sammagureanu Printed: 2/8/2021 4:18:18 PM Period 01 - 12 Fiscal Year 2021 Fund Description Beg Bal Debits Credits End Bal 404 Park Dedication 404 Asset 1,163,839.87 0.00 0.00 1,163,839.87 404 Liability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404 Fund Balance 1,163,839.87 0.00 0.00 1,163,839.87 404 Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404 Expense 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404 Park Dedication 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grand Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GL - GL Fund Balances (02/08/2021 - 04:18 PM)Page 1 2020 Parks Commission Appointments and Terms Commissioner Term Term Expires Juan Rivera 1 12/31/2023 John Ames 6 12/31/2022 Peter Kastler 1 12/31/2022 Barry Weeks 2 12/31/2021 Hank Hoelscher 1 12/31/2021 Steve Schumacher 1 12/31/2021 Isak Nightingale 2 12/31/2022