Loading...
2006-02-14 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:30 p.m. — Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Election of Commission Chair and Co -Chair 4. January 10, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes 5. Welcome to New Commissioner Tom Kraus 6. Chair Spicer's Report on Committee Meeting to Plan 2006 Park Celebration/ 50"' Anniversary Recognition. 7. Recreation Programmer's Report (available Tuesday) 8. Tobacco -Free Parks Policy (Michael Coyne and CHOOSE Members, Visitation and Saint Thomas Academy) 9. Updates • Pilot Knob Site (Clearing of Trees & Woody Plants Set for March 25`x' --Volunteers Welcome!) • Lemay Shores Concept Plan (Hoffman Homes) • Police Report (none) 10. Other Comments 11. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2006 The January 2006 meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Richard Spicer and Commissioners Dave Libra, Raymond Morris, Paul Portz, and Larry Craighead. Commissioners Stan Linnell and Missie Hickey were excused from the meeting. City Staff present were Operations and Projects Coordinator Guy Kullander, Recreation Programmer Teresa Gangelhoff, and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. Also present in the audience were Councilmembers Ultan Duggan and Mary -Jeanne Schneeman, and Amelia Olson of the Mendota Heights Athletic Association. MINUTES Commissioner Libra moved approval of the November 9, 2005 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. Commissioner Portz seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CHAIR SPICER'S REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETING TO PLAN 2006 PARK CELEBRATION/50TH ANNIVERSARY RECOGNITION Chair Spicer reminded everyone that observance of the City's 50th Anniversary will be held on Saturday, June 3, 2006. Chair Spicer said that the festivities will include a 5k run and 5k walk. Chair Spicer said that there will also be an antique car show at Mendakota Park and Mendota Plaza. Chair Spicer said that in the afternoon there will be food vendors, dignitaries, bands, kids' activities, and a night dance. Chair Spicer said that the evening will conclude with a fireworks display. RECREATION PROGRAMMER'S REPORT Ms. Gangelhoff provided an overview of recreation activities, including holiday trips. Ms. Gangelhoff also said that the weather has not been good for the skating rinks, but that the softball letters had gone out for the 2006 season. Chair Spicer said that Ms. Gangelhoff has done a fabulous job as a part-time employee. CLIFF TIMM Chair Spicer noted that Mr. Cliff Timm had recently passed away. Councilmember Duggan suggested renaming the annual Fishing Derby to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby. Chair Spicer moved to recommend that the annual Fishing Derby be renamed to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby. Commissioner Craighead seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Morris asked if Rogers Park should also be named after Cliff Timm. Chair Spicer suggested installing a commemorative park bench for Cliff Timm near Rogers Lake. Chair Spicer said that the bench would cost about $750. Commissioner Libra moved to request that the City expend $750 to install a commemorative park bench at Rogers Lake for Cliff Timm. Commissioner Libra further moved that the source of the funds should be from the General Fund if possible, and only from the Special Parks Funds if necessary. Commissioner Portz seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Craighead suggested renaming the pier itself after Cliff Timm. Chair Spicer asked Staff to place the idea of renaming the pier or some other honor on the next Parks and Recreation Commission agenda. 2 AMELIA OLSON OF MHAA Chair Spicer acknowledged Ms. Amelia Olson, Program Director of the Mendota Heights Athletic Association. Chair Spicer told MS. Olson that the Parks and Recreation Commission supported MHAA's good work and that they would like a representative of MHAA to come periodically to Commission meetings to facilitate communication. Ms. Olson said that she had been in contact with Mr. Kullander and Ms. Gangelhoff quite frequently recently, and that registrations for some MHAA activities would now be taking place at City Hall. Ms. Olson said that registration for softball and T -ball will take place on January 26, January 28, February 2, and February 4. Ms. Olson said that there would be a $25 late fee for registration. Mr. Kullander said that there is information about these programs at the front desk at City Hall. Ms. Olson added that MHAA has started a girls' volleyball program and an NFL football program. Chair Spicer thanked Ms. Olson and asked her to return to a future Commission meeting sometime soon. ICE SKATING ON ROGERS LAKE Chair Spicer noted that the resident who asked about the possibility of ice skating on Rogers Lake was not present. Chair Spicer suggested tabling this issue until the resident appears at a meeting. Chair Spicer asked Mr. Kullander if it would be possible to clear off a portion of the lake for ice skating. Mr. Kullander said that the Public Works has had bad experiences with this idea in the past. Commissioner Craighead said that he is concerned about the danger of someone falling through the ice, particularly because of the aerator at Rogers Lake. Mr. Kullander confirmed that near the aerator safety could be a concern. Mr. Kullander said that it is possible that the City's liability insurance costs would go up. Mr. Kullander said that some residents take the initiative to clear portions of the lake for skating, but that he did not think the City should be doing this. Commissioner Morris agreed, saying that individual residents who prepare rinks are doing so at their own risk. VALLEY PARK TENNIS COURTS Mr. Kullander said that resident, Mr. Kline, expressed concern about resurfacing Valley Park Tennis Courts. Chair Spicer noted that the City resurfaces on a regular schedule. Mr. Kullander said that the southeast corner of the skating rink has a problem, but that the public works crew was going to cut down turf and put curbing along the trail when they do maintenance in the spring. Mr. Kullander said that public works would address these issues in 2006 and resurface in 2007. Chair Spicer asked Mr. Kullander to let Mr. Kline know about the steps the City will take to address the issue. Mr. Kullander pointed out that the Marie tennis courts get more use that the Valley Park tennis courts. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that the Lilydale Tennis Club will be closing. Councilmember Schneeman said that she and others are trying to find a place to build a new tennis club nearby. Chair Spicer asked if the Valley Park resurfacing could be moved up for a year. Mr. Kullander said that there was no money in the budget for resurfacing the tennis courts in 2006. Chair Spicer suggested placing this item on the Council agenda. Commissioner Criaghead said that the City has a seven-year resurfacing plan for tennis courts and asked when the last time was that Valley Park tennis courts were resurfaced. Mr. Kullander said that it was done about five years ago. Chair Spicer said that it might be good to do the resurfacing now, because the Commission tries to make safety concerns a higher priority. Mr. Kullander said that he would get a couple of resurfacing bids in the spring and bring this item before the City Council. 11 COUNCIL/PARKS COMMISSION WORKSHOP SUMMARY Chair Spicer asked about the issue of funding for the Special Parks Fund. Mr. Kullander said that Mr. Danielson and Ms. Schabacker looked at the Cell Tower Revenues and that repainting the water tower would cost about $1.25 million. Mr. Kullander said that the water tower fund has about $1.3 million in it right now. Mr. Kullander said that the Council may discuss if money from the water tower fund could be transferred to the Special Parks Fund when planning for the 2007 City Budget begins this summer. Chair Spicer noted that the City had acquired the Pilot Knob site. Chair Spicer said that Resurrection Cemetery has extra land, and that the City has diminishing green space. Chair Spicer said that it might be possible to make a trail connection from the Augusta Shores development to the south part of the cemetery land. Mr. Kullander pointed out that Hoffman Homes had submitted a Concept Plan for Phase II of the Augusta Shores development and that the Planning Commission would discuss it in January and the Council would discuss it in February. Mr. Kullander said that the Concept Plan features an emergency vehicle access from Phase II to the south part of the Resurrection Cemetery property and that the City's trail idea might be worked into the emergency access. Chair Spicer recalled that at the workshop the Council had asked Mr. Danielson to contact resurrection Cemetery to see if they would be willing to sell a portion of their land to the City. Mr. Kullander said that the Council may wish to see this concept plan first before engaging into the discussion about acquiring land. Mr. Kullander also pointed out that the Great River Greening organization will be at the next Council meeting to discuss their plan for restoration and management of the Pilot Knob site. NURT TRAIL Mr. Kullander showed the alignment for the NURT trail on the north side of Highway 110. Mr. Kullander said that MnDOT reevaluated the safety aspects and decided to allow a mid -point crossing for the trail. Mr. Kullander said that the engineers for the County are now in the design process and that the design will be submitted to the Parks Commission and the Council for review. Mr. Kullander put a map of the proposed alignment on the screen. Mr. Kullander said that the mid -point crossing has really good site lines in both directions. Chair Spicer said that this compromise proves that community meetings work. 5 COMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS Mr. Kullander passed out a list of candidates for Commission appointments. Mr. Kullander said that the Council would be interviewing these candidates next Tuesday. Commissioner Portz asked if any of the candidates are affiliated with MHAA. Mr. Kullander said that he had reviewed the applications of the candidates and that none of the candidates had mentioned any involvement with MHAA or any young children. Chair Spicer asked Mr. Kullander to pass along that the Council should ask the candidates if they have any involvement with MHAA. Councilmember Schneeman said that the Council is interviewing a total of twelve candidates. Commissioner Ports said that if the new Parks Commissioner is not affiliated with MHAA, one of the Commissioners should take the initiative to serve as the MHAA liaison. INVASIVE SPECIES Chair Spicer noted that Commissioner Linnell had a lot of knowledge about plants, the DNR, and grant opportunities, and that his departure from the Commission represents a big loss. Mr. Kullander said that he is getting proposals for the eradication of buckthorn. Commissioner Libra said that there are lots of Box Elders and Cottonwoods creeping around the neighborhood. Commissioner Moms said that there are ecological reasons why one would want trees on the edge of water. UPDATES Staff provided the following updates: Police Report Staff provided the Police Report for November/December 2005. OTHER COMMENTS (None.) G ADJOURN Commissioner Libra moved to adjourn. Commissioner Portz seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. 7 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 9, 2006 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Welcome to New Commissioner Tom Kraus! Discussion The City Council, at their regular meeting on January 17, 2006, appointed Tom Kraus to the Parks and Recreation Commission. (Please see attached materials.) Action Required Welcome Commissioner Kraus to the Parks and Recreation Commission! Tom Kraus 1841 Walsh Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 December 21, 2005 Mr. Jim Danielson City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Danielson: I am writing to submit my name as an applicant for openings on two of the Mendota Heights commissions described in the most recent city government newsletter. I am interested in volunteering as a member of either the Planning Commission or the Parks and Recreation Commission, and would be happy to serve on whichever commission has the greatest need. My wife and I purchased our home on Walsh Lane a little over a year ago. I became a member of the Mendota Heights community at that time, while my wife has resided here for just over eight years. We have a young family, including a two -month-old daughter, and are proud to call Mendota Heights our home. In addition to being hard working and reliable, I possess a broad range of personal and professional experiences that I believe would make me a valuable member of either of the commissions for which I am applying. I have included a copy of my resume for your review. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to serve the Mendota Heights community, and eagerly await your reply. Sincerely, Tom Kraus Enclosure CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 24, 2006 TO: Park Commission FROM: Teresa Gangelhoff SUBJECT: Tobacco Free Parks DISCUSSION: Mr. Michael Coyne and Choose members would like to come to the February 14 meeting to discuss that the city adopt a Tobacco -Free Parks policy. Jan.25, 2006 8:47AM Visitation School No-1662 P. 3 Convent of thefiF Dear Mendota Heights Parks Commission; The CHOOSE members from Visitation and Saint Thomas Academy and I would like to be on the agenda on February 14, 2006. We would like to request that the Parks Commission recommend to the City Council that the City Council adopt a Tobacco -Free Parks Policy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael Co e Chemical Health Coordinator Visitation and Saint Thomas Academy CHOOSE Members Visitation and Saint Thomas Academy Non Scbolae, Sed Virae. Nor for SchoA bur for Life. 2455 Visitation Drive - Mendota Heights, MN 55120 • Phone: (651) 633-1700 0 Fax: (631)'454-7144 • Web site: www.visitadon.net CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 2, 2006 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator `'; FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Planning Case #06-03: Hoffman Homes Lemay Shores Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development Discussion Mr. Pat Hoffman of Hoffinan Homes appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on January 31, 2006 to discuss Hoffman Homes' Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development for Lemay Shores. Hoffman -Mendota Shore, LLC has submitted a PUD Concept Plan for the development of cottage -style twin home buildings north of the Augusta Shore development. The concept calls for the development of 31 twin home buildings for a total of 62 homes. The overall site area includes 68 acres of which a total of 41 acres is proposed to remain as open space. The overall project density is 0.91 units per gross acre with an upland density of 1.28 units per acre. The subject site is currently zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to LR -PUD to allow for flexibility from the cul-de-sac length and lot area requirements of the Ordinance, and to allow multi -family units. This process was utilized for the Augusta Shores project by the same developer, just north of this proposed project. Although no public hearing is required for a Concept Plan discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission did allow those in the audience who wished to comment to do so. Three people commented: Colleen Kahn, 2370 Lemay Lake Road, Chad Leqve of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and Ellsworth Stein, Airport Relations Commissioner. (Attached are print-outs of three airport noise maps that Mr. Leqve displayed on the overhead during his comments. Better versions of these three maps can be found at the web locations at the bottom of each map.) Please see the minutes from the January 31, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commission found elsewhere in this agenda packet. The City is currently under a subdivision moratorium. Staff has reviewed the language of the moratorium ordinance and feels that the moratorium does not prohibit discussion by the Planning Commission and the Council of this Concept Plan. Staff has advised Hoffman Homes, however, that the moratorium does prevent the City from approving any formal subdivision application for this property as long as it is in effect. Please see the attached materials pertaining to this Concept Plan. Hoffman Homes will be present at the February 7, 2006 Council meeting to discuss this Concept Plan and to answer any questions the Council may have. Council Action Required Discuss this Concept Plan with Hoffman Homes. Per the City's Zoning Ordinance, all comments on this Concept Plan made by the Planning Commission, City Council, or City Staff are strictly preliminary and are not binding upon the City in any way. J Z 5 a_ 0 5 J s t o � (b 0 �' C C t o � (b 0 �' C s - t j. - i- 4 i w.- -- - t f . /,. : .'il .. - !: ....,may, ! ':�-+,• - + .. . .- �.i jj i...i__.._ - -:- '�i;< i 1 M- MI <ut \, ^-.�! "-. 'r. 7,k- f�t�'"•r s y ' i F y _ � � z s1 r ,t .-v'sk- z "�, '.: fr,�xr __-- ,'f:�J"s.•a I W-4 ftdl' s.+a i,< F x* } u 1 MM,2 •S�wT Z F i �;�' ___ T £ _ ___ .�•'"� .. .,. .:' - : <r- �, `mak is j �r,�t,Lr -x•�-a Y�c�:: i t `,�;.: f A y s€%'>��e r ---- } .'•I""i..` :.. .,.:._->. \� ;i }.i a„� 2:; tot-✓F r 4]s,..-b .'-^'s .,:�e•"t{�'.- _ ! 4. k = - -.,.. , - iul --.._i,_� -� r i }} f h fi V.;y"'a"'R^-.,. •'r t'. fi' d f x�,✓ t f 4.. - ; .. _ ..•,!'` `, �' ..(`$..t yrs, j_ •�s�.. "--tr '' \- `T:�` xi '3 - '' , '”'...tgY L(ji t-tt, -e t 3 inFr `erNs &I' WIVOAR 4J- a T �`'�:. ?:. /� ....., ..€, ,-•-',...,:� �..za:.iv r- £;s7 � �� cG �'. l mar �. �. - -' - �! - .. qr I ? � .Y.S c hWa'"i:.4i( .: �. �� n. � 7`�x.,� ..J i i I.•. ,. t.;. '� ' i •_ 0 it ✓+.' :. 'r � F :+'✓r'�' : ; + ..; �.. UY � 3 Y. ( L�`�: r tah'�� � �" �..�, � _ 3 to _ _..,_.�. - i i-- }; . � i i 1 .._ __- .e , !j ilk y] r aT t z 4 T. c - 8 a !" a . 4 71 lj 2jq 7i7'\? __—� sFF - i AJC } ♦'< x#f yi '' i Ma ii W'- f X NNN ..:A.WTAT` !>,YAI-1111 ct(`'xr-t`"1>• 1T t 3'' i CD j,.a :.+;; •:..� 4� i .� t' �� j'. � ate; ,l \-!�+,,z; '�,«',yfx�s`,��_ 1� s ;� �k��Xt'�{,..�s�� a _ N• I. ! --'- " y ' 't�4 ]. k-N � t PF �r w� s{, aR pu NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4500 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 p{anners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S). LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Description of Request Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen Grittman January 25, 2006 January 31, 2006 Lemay Shores - PUD- Concept Plan Application Planning Case 06-02; NAC Case 254.04 — 06.02 Hoffman -Mendota Shore LLC 2105 Lexington Avenue Mil Low Density Residential Hoffman -Mendota Shore, LLC has submitted a PUD Concept Plan for the development of cottage -style twin home buildings north of the Augusta Shore development. The concept calls for the development of 31 twin home buildings for a total of 62 homes. The overall site area includes 68 acres of which a total of 41 acres is proposed to remain as open space. The overall project density is 0.91 units per gross acre with an upland density of 1.28 units per acre. This density is well below the maximum allowable density for this area. The subject site is currently zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R-1 PUD to allow for flexibility from the cul-de-sac length and lot area requirements of the Ordinance, and to allow single family attached units. This process was utilized for the Augusta Shores project by the same developer, just north of this proposed project. Background Information and Issues AnalVsis In 1997, the City considered a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Cemetery to Low Density Residential as part of the Augusta Shores residential development application. The area is currently guided for residential uses and is Zoned R-1. As part of the current request, a PUD is being sought by the applicant. The purpose of a planned unit development is to allow flexibility from certain zoning standards to achieve a higher quality project than what would otherwise be achieved through conventional zoning. Examples of flexibility from the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance include design standards, increased open space, natural resource preservation, superior building quality, and / or a higher standard in landscaping design. According to the Ordinance, all PUD development applications should be reviewed based upon the following guidelines as found in the Ordinance: 1. Encourage flexibility in the design and development of land. 2. Preserve the natural and scenic quality of open spaces. 3. Encourage a diversity of housing types within a development. 4. Permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project. 5. Permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements. 6. Limit development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. The City will need to make a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the goals of the PUD ordinance as a part of the next phase of PUD review. Subdivision and Lot Layout The City has enacted a moratorium prohibiting the processing of new Subdivision applications. At this stage, the project is proceeding as a PUD (a zoning process). Because the City merely comments on Concept Plans and no formal action is taken, this project may proceed at this time. A Preliminary Plat will be a part of the next phase of review. All of the lots are located to have direct access off of the extended public street. Due to topographic conditions that exist within the site, major elevation changes will be required for the development to proceed. As a result, the overall landscape of the site will change dramatically. All of the lots are outside of the shoreland setback area as identified on the concept however, Lot 17 and 18 are located 20 feet from the edge of the deck to the setback area. This will limit the usable yard area. It would appear that these 2 lots could be shifted east (toward Lot 15 and16) while still meeting the side yard setback requirement. Airport Noise It appears that a majority of the site is located within the Airport Noise Reduction Zone 4. The zone allows single/multiplexes with individual entrances as long as construction meets the noise reduction level numbers established by the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance. According to the applicant, all homes will be noise attenuated to meet and exceed the Metropolitan Council and City construction standards, similar to the Augusta Shores development. LeMay Shores is located within the same 60-65 DNL noise zones of Augusta Shores. The applicant's submission material indicates that prior to the new runway opening, the Augusta Shores neighborhood was located with the 65-70 DNL, an area with greater airport noise impact. Circulation The street right-of-way as shown on the concept plan is 60 feet wide and therefore meets the City's right-of-way requirement. The concept plan calls for a single access onto the site off of Rogers Road. Due to the shape of the project area, LeMay Lake and topographic conditions such as steep sloops, access from alternate location will be difficult or impossible. The majority of the lots are designed to have access off of a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac length is measured at 2,000 feet and therefore, flexibility from the overall cul-de-sac length requirement is being sought by the applicant. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 5.3 (2), cul-de-sac lengths are recommended to be 500 feet. The current length is 1,500 feet over the recommended length. As a point of reference, during the Augusta Shores development, the cul-de-sac length was measured at approximately 1,200 feet and 1,400 feet. Long cul-de-sacs present some general concerns within urban design. Most of these concerns relate to emergency vehicle access and general circulation issues. Another concern specific to this cul-de-sac is the grade change within the subject site. From north to south there is a 32 foot elevation change. A significant amount of grading will be required within this area to allow safe driving conditions. To mitigate the emergency vehicle access concern, the applicant has arranged to reserve an emergency access point through Resurrection Cemetery near the far north end of the project. The applicant has also provided for future extension of the roadway to the south. The applicant should work with City Engineering staff to ensure that this location provides for a reasonable connection to the adjoining property. 3 Setbacks Within a PUD, the perimeter setbacks imposed in the base zoning district are considered. Within the base R-1 district, the following perimeter setbacks are applicable: Front yard setback 30 feet Side yard setback 10 feet Rear yard setback 30 feet The overall lot layout conforms with the setback standards of the Ordinance. As the plans move forward to the development stage, the applicant will be required to verify setbacks to ensure conformity with these standards. Building Architecture As a PUD, the City has the ability to offer recommendations with regard to building architecture. The applicant has submitted exterior designs for the buildings front elevation. The homes will incorporate a cottage style design. An additional three -car garage option will be available with a turned garage design as shown on the development plan. These buildings are similar to those constructed in Augusta Shores. Landscaping No landscaping plan has been submitted to date. As part of forthcoming submissions, a landscape plan will be required. Such plan should specify the location, variety and size of all proposed plantings as well as a tree protection and replacement plan. Buffer plantings should also be incorporated around the proposed pond and shoreland setback areas. Additionally, the landscaping plan should incorporate specific boulevard plantings and plantings specific to the garden areas. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities A grading plan is not required during the concept stage. As a condition of approval however, the applicant will be required to provide detailed grading, drainage, and tree protection plans to minimize runoff and preserve the site area. According to the applicant, the development plan incorporates a natural wooded entryway, with a proposed newly created pond area and fountain. The neighborhood has been designed to allow for many single -loaded streets. The development will however result in a drastic change to the surrounding grade and landscape of the area. According to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 5.8 discourages construction and grading on slopes steeper than 18%. Based upon the concept plan, it appears that several of the proposed house pads exceed this requirement. The grading plan required as a part of the Preliminary Plat stage will illustrate the level of impact on the slopes. It would appear that without PUD flexibility in this area, little development land would be available. 0 Development Agreement As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into subdivision and PUD agreements with the City and post all the necessary securities required by them. Summary and Conclusion The overall concept plan is laid out in a fashion that allows for a residential development within a tight site area. The overall development proposes to dedicate a significant amount of open space. The intent of the concept plan review is to allow the City to provide comments and recommendations to the applicant prior to the development stage of the PUD. In review of the conceptual plan for LeMay Shores the following comments are offered for consideration. Site Planning The applicant should prepare information with regard to the garden areas proposed for the site. What restrictions will be placed upon these areas and what percentage of these areas will be usable space (exclusive of sleep slopes)? The City may wish to require a trail system that links the garden areas to the adjoining homes. A conceptual trail connection is shown on the concept plans. Circulation ® The City will need to make a finding at the next stage of review that the cul-de-sac length is acceptable. Issues to consider relate to emergency vehicle access as well as the elevation change from north to south which may make winter driving an issue. Grading • The change in elevation within the site will be significant. Custom design and grading within the site area could be required in an effort to preserve the surrounding area. Landscaping Landscaping within the site should specify the location, variety and size of all proposed plantings as well as a tree protection and replacement plan. 5 Buffer plantings should also be incorporated around the proposed pond and shoreland setback areas. • The landscaping plan should incorporate specific boulevard plantings and garden area plantings. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application materials dated December 28, 2005. rot Case No. /)6_0 Z-, Date of Application Fee Paid &// Applicant Name: N, Ffp,,,�3, NDR�-_, �-Lc- PH: `i52 IR -i -A - 3333 (Last) (First) (M) , E -Mail Address: Address: 13-1li5 ��� � C -,ti- IL'1 b S� %-i'G 2 Qor '�w�,�gv.LLE J SS 33 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: C� L+a'D Lt' C- C-ESC--TEq_' 1'G .S (Last) (First) (M) Address: Z -,o 5LEk; l� �o.l Aje . i tAE0 t'�--rT f i&N -VS 4ynr� 'S 51 ya (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) LE c_ , -A- D6 s c-)2 t e T 1 "'j A i TP C_ i-1 E� d,` Pzc--k- Sq, 2}-o4t.ar_,DIo-` ) k Lam_ �tnn--io-3rj A: 2-74- c-lloo-OL---3S Type of Request.- Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property � - 1 Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit `Other (attach explanation) P'j D C='tjcePT PLAt i Section Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property �-! P' -'1D Proposed Use ZEs�f-" t-. >I jp--� Fad I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and their a is to inspect the above property during daylight hours. ! / (Signature of Applicant)' Date Received (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria Curve a Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 452-1850 e FA (651) 452-8940 HOFFMAN- MEND 0TA SNORE, LLC 13795 FRONTIER COURT, SUITE 200 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 PSOATE. 952-997-3333 FAX.- 952-997-6666 December 28, 2005 LEMAY SHORES -- PUD Concept Plan Application Development Schedule: 1. Explanation of the character of the Planned Unit Development: The LeMay Shores neighborhood is planned as a continuation of the Augusta -- Shores development located to the immediate north of this proposaL The homes will incorporate a new cottage style design, allowing for a mix of natural color tones throughout the development. The twin homes will be a move -up rambler design product with an average sales price over $500,000. This neighborhood proposal includes thirty-one twin home buildings, for a total of sixty-two homes. One new additional feature incorporated into the neighborhood, as requested by homeowners, is a 3 -car garage option that is available with the turned garage design and additional setbacks as shown on the development plan_ All homes will be noise attenuated to meet, and exceed, the Metropolitan Council and City of Mendota Heights construction standards, similar to the Augusta Shores development recently completed. LeMay Shores is located within the same 60 — 65 DNL noise zones as the existing Augusta Shores project. Prior to the new runway opening, the Augusta Shores neighborhood was located within the 65 — 70 DNL, which is considered an area with greater airport noise impact. The development plan includes a dramatic natural wooded entryway, with a proposed newly created pond area and fountain. The neighborhood has been designed to allow for many single -loaded streets (homes only on one side of the street). It includes extended home setbacks and curvilinear street features, garden areas and large areas of open space. The low overall project density of 0.91 units per gross acre and an upland density of 1.28 units per acre fits within the existing R-1 zoning of the property. The proposed LeMay Shores project compares favorably to the Augusta Shores project which is developed at 1.7 units per gross acre and over 2 units per upland acre. 2. Statement of proposed financing: All site, preparation costs will be paid directly by the developer. The streets and public infrastructure will be installed under city contract and will be assessed proportionally to the newly created lots, similar to the Augusta Shores development. 3. Statement of present ownership: The property is currently owned by The Catholic Cemeteries. Hoffman -Mendota Shore, LLC is the contract purchaser of the property. 4. Expected schedule of development and phasing: This project will be constructed as one phase. All physical improvements will be done at the same time and will not be phased. Homes will be constructed as sales dictate, but we anticipate completion within three years. 5. Character and density of the dwelling units: See response to item # 1. 6. Industrial or commercial acreage and projected employment: There is not any industrial or commercial acreage within the development and therefore no projected employment. 7. ®pen space and percentage of impervious surface: The 68 acre property provides significant open space, as shown on the proposed development plans. Approximately 41.15 acres of the site will be left as open space. The approximate impervious surface area of the site is 7.15 acres or 10.5%. 8. Projected traffic: This neighborhood is proposed to generate approximately 496 trips per day, utilizing 8 trips per day average per home. This traffic can be accommodated by the existing adjoining public roads. Attached please find: 1) Application for PUD Concept Plan 2) PUD Concept Plan Checklist 3) Proposed development plan 4) Surrounding area plan 5) MAC contour map overlay 6) Conceptual unit rendering If you need any additional information please give me a call. Sincerely, Patrick C. Hoffman President Attachments U A UO NEW UN® 2DM PIN 3AN r, WE CFcm, MING. U 3iZ2 "ONE (651) '05-66C[ FAk; (651 1D5 -66C4 HOFFMAN-MENDOTA SHORE, LLC. MENDOTA HEIGHTS CONCEPT Rev. Dote HOFFMAN—MENDOTA SHORE, LLC. ,<IL ;OJ ,�„ MENDOTA HEIGHTS CONCEPT 2DG %N ]_ Cmlr C/•D..(I51) I _66cc MAC CONTOUR MAP OVERLAY ��Y. FF DNL• (651) n0 5 -66C[ 'Alt (651) ,DS-66CL I / / January 6, 2006 Mendota i Planning Project Development Coordinator Mn/DOT Metro District 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 RE: CONCEPT PLAN FOR LEMAY SHORES Dear Planning Project Development Coordinator: I have enclosed for your information a concept plan for the subject project. This proposed development is located on Trunk Highway 55. The City anticipates receiving a preliminary plat submittal later this year. We will provide you with additional information at that time but would welcome any comments you may have on the concept plan. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 255-1123 if you have any questions. Sincerely, — Sue McDermott, P.E. City Engineer Cc: Planning Case File Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant 1101 victoria Curve a Mendota Heights, MA 55118 (651) 452-1850 0 PAX (651) 452-8940 Mendota Heights PUD Concept Plan Checklist Date: Applicant: Phone ## / Fax #: Location of Property: Other Approvals Needed: Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections: CITY PROCESS 0;--wo/.amu. rtFAi�JW My/�/J3///IZAff. ! Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council Only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Ifroper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by (date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on,T 711 (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on _ �' (date). i� APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: The applicant shall provide to the Planning Commission and the Council at the pre - application conference the Concept Plan and other information specified in Section 22-5- A Concept Plan must include both maps and a written statement, and must show enough of the area surrounding the proposed Planned Unit Development to demonstrate the relationship of the Planned Unit Development to adjoining uses, both existing and proposed. The maps which are part of the Concept Plan may be in general schematic form, and must contain the following information: a. The existing topographic character of the land. b. Existing and proposed land uses and the approximate location of building, utilities, and unique development features of the site. c. The location of major thoroughfares. d_ Public uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces. A written statement must accompany the Concept Plan, which must contain the following: a. An explanation of the character of the Planned Unit Development and the manner in which it is consistent with and has been planned to comply with the Planned Unit Development provisions contained in Section 22. b. A statement of proposed financing. c. A statement of the present ownership and all existing or contingent interests in all of the land included within the Planned Unit Development. d. A general indication of the expected schedule of development including progressive phasing and time schedules which shall not exceed five (5) years from the date if approval of the Final Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development to the completion of all construction. e. The character and approximate density of the dwelling units. £ Estimated industrial or commercial acreage and projected employment. g. Estimated square footage of any commercial development. h. Estimated amount of open space and a computation showing the percents of impervious surface in the Project Area. i. Projected traffic. _�. Completed Application Form (Only original need be submitted).. "Note: Dated original of all of the above materials, b7cluding this checklist (S % & II), must be submitted in .persoa to Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary (651-255- 1125) by noon the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. Please provide 20 copies of all materials larger than 11 x 17 (plus 1 copied to 11 x 17). All materials larger than 11 x 17 must be folded to 8 z/ x 11. Notes: A Policy Maker's Guide to Playgrounds and Athletic Facilities TOBACCO &S FREE per„ Tau TH-1 PROVIDING TOBACCO -FREE RECREATION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY Tobacco -Free Policy Request As members of the CHOOSE group of St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School and citizens and students of Mendota Heights, we are asking the City of Mendota Heights to adopt a tobacco - free policy for the city's parks and outdoor recreational facilities for the following reasons: Local parks are intended to be places where people can relax, exercise, play sports and over all should be a place where people can go to maintain positive mental and physical health. Second hand smoke should not be allowed in parks for the fact that it diminishes the integrity of parks. Secondhand smoke in parks creates polluted air. Secondhand smoke is unhealthy and harmful to all who are exposed to it. Citizens of all ages use parks. Young children look up to youth and adults. Those who smoke lead by example and are role models to younger children whether they choose to be or not. Children need to see by example that smoking is unhealthy, and as responsible citizens it is our obligation to set and lead by good examples. By adopting this policy we are leading by a respectable and healthy example. Local parks should be clean environments. Citizens should not have to worry about stepping on chewing tobacco or fear that young toddlers will find cigarette butts in the sandbox, which could potentially be put in their mouths. Tobacco use in parks causes unnecessary litter. For safety and sanitary reasons and for protecting children from playing with tobacco, our city should adopt eliminate tobacco use in our city park areas. Proposed Tobacco -Free Facilities All city -owned park property and trails including playgrounds, parks, athletic fields/courts/rinks that are located in Mendota Heights. Proposed Policy Enforcement Plan In order to most effectively educate the community about this policy and �nsure compliance, we suggest the following enforcement plan: 1. Appropriate signs as directed by the Park & Recreation Department shall be posted in the above-specified areas. 2. The community, especially facility users and staff, will be notified about this policy (Policy manual, newsletters, local media). 3. Park & Recreation staff will make periodic observations of recreational facilities to monitor for compliance. Why Do Communities Want Tobacco -Free Parks for Kids? In the past five years, 73 Minnesota municipalities and 2 counties have passed policies to restrict tobacco use in their park facilities They've done it for a variety of reasons, • Children Model Adult Behavior Like it or not, children model the behaviors they observe in adults. If we want them to make healthy choices, exposing them to unhealthy habits makes it an uphill battle. Many youth have the misperception that most people smoke, because they regularly observe it. The message they're receiving is that smoking is acceptable. `"Do as we say, not as we do" has never worked with kids. They see right through the hypocrisy. • Consistent Policies Send a Consistent Message Most youth organizations (athletics, faith -based, scouts, etc.) have policies against tobacco use. In addition, schools prohibit tobacco use on all of their property. Parks, sports and youth recreation programs are healthy activities. They just don't mix with the deadly habit of smoking. A policy that covers community park and recreation facilities ensures that children receive consistent messages about tobacco at school, during their softball game at the park fields, and when they're at the neighborhood playground with friends. For some communities, tobacco use restrictions are a natural extension of their policies restricting alcohol use in the parks. • Cigarette Litter is Harmful Cigarette butts are often the #1 cause of litter in parks. They ruin the appearance of these natural outdoor settings and can be a fire hazard. They also increase maintenance costs and pose a risk of ingestion by pets and toddlers. • Secondhand Smoke is Dangerous Children on the playing field, as well as parents in the stands, are frequently annoyed by the bad smell of tobacco smoke from other fans attending a ball game. Tobacco smoke smells bad because it is bad. When you smell tobacco smoke you are breathing in a mixture of over 4000 chemicals including arsenic, benzene, carbon monoxide, cyanide and formaldehyde. Secondhand smoke is considered a Group A carcinogen like asbestos and radon, for which there is no known save level of exposure. Secondhand smoke kills at least 38,000 Americans each year. Children are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure. To learn more about making parks tobacco -free in your community call 651-554-6184 A 2004 University of Minnesota survey found that 70% of Minnesotans support tobacco -free park and recreation areas! ��tt4 FttF��� Tobacco Use is On This Park Property ThantYoa '? Tobacco -Free Park & Recreational Facilities in Minnesota (Park Policies & City Ordinances) 4R9� y ,,2 12) 19 4 r ti 2 1. 3, Metro Area 400 GREATER MINNESOTA f4 Aitkin 1 Callaway 61 Alexandria 63 Cloquet 6 Aurora 2 Cohasset 11 Austin 3 Crookston 13 Battle Lake 64 Duluth 14 Baxter 4 Eagle Lake 16 Biwabik 5 Elk River 60 Brainerd 7 Eveleth 18 Breckenridge 8 Faribault 19 Buhl 9 Fayal Township 20 September 2005 r] METRO AREA (24 Anoka Mahtomedi Andover Maple Grove Arden Hills Maplewood Bloomington New Brighton Brooklyn Center PIymouth Champlin Ramsey Coon Rapids Richfield Dayton Robbinsdale Eagan Roseville Eden Prairie Saint Paul Edina Savage Golden Valley Shoreview Fergus Falls 10 Morris 32 Sartell 45 Grand Rapids 22 Mountain Iron 33 Spicer 48 Henning 62 New York Mills 67 Virginia 49 Hibbing 23 Norwood Young Willmar 50 Hoyt Lakes 24 America 35 Wolverton 59 International Falls 25 Owatonna 36 Zimmerman 51 Kent 26 Parkers Prairie 66 La Prairie 65 Pelican Rapids 12 COUNTIES Luverne 27 Prinsburg 38 I. Rock County Marshall 30 Rochester 41 2, Anoka County Monticello 31 St. Cloud 43 r�uxa attsk�ri:at, Frequently Asked Questions about Tobacco -Free Policies for Park Areas in Minnesota What is current Minnesota state law on smoking outdoors? There is currently no state law that regulates tobacco use in outdoor areas. Are local governments able to enact policies restricting tobacco use? Neither federal nor state law prohibits local governments from regulating tobacco use outdoors.' What is the difference between a park policy and an ordinance? In general, park policies are rules regarding city -owned park property that are established by the city park board and are often approved by the city council. Generally, those who ignore park policies do not receive a fine, but are asked to refrain from using tobacco or leave the premises. City ordinances are city council enactments that regulate people or property and carry a penalty such as a fine for violations. Ordinances often originate from a recommendation passed by the city park board.2 For both park policies and city ordinances, tobacco use is prohibited on city park property. Should a policy cover all property and activities or just youth events? In Minnesota, both types of policies exist, but the recent trend is toward"allproperty" policies because they may be simpler for citizens to understand, rather than to determine which activities qualify as "youth events." How do other Minnesota cities and townships enforce their policies? Minnesota cities and townships with tobacco -free park policies post signs in their park areas that announce the policy. These signs provide cities with the ability to rely on community and self -enforcement. Many tobacco users look for Sino tobacco" signs. These signs empower everyone using the parks to provide friendly reminders about the policy to violators. Signs also help to eliminate the need for any law enforcement presence. The majority of Minnesota cities with policies have received their signs free of charge from Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation. 1 Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. (5/4/00). Legal opinion letter to Peter Vogel. 'League of Minnesota Cities. (2003). Handbook for Minnesota Cities. [Online]. Available: http://www.lmnc.org/handbook/chapterO7.pdf. April 2005 In addition to signs, cities notify their community members in a variety of ways: local media, city newsletters, policy reminder cards, recreation program brochures, policy statements sent to sports associations, and coaches' trainings. Are existing policies working? Yes! According to a 2004 University of Minnesota survey of Minnesota park directors in cities with such policies, 88% of park directors reported no change in park usage (no loss of park users), 71% reported less smoking in parks, and 58% reported cleaner park areas. What effect do tobacco -free park policies have on youth? Research has not been completed on this particular topic, but in general, tobacco -free policies help prevent youth tobacco use, particularly by providing adults the opportunity to be tobacco -free role models throughout the community.3 What other benefits result from tobacco - free policies? Cigarette filters are not biodegradable, so they do not decay and cannot be absorbed by the environment. A policy reduces park and beach litter and protects toddlers from ingesting filters that are discarded. In Minnesota, smoking-related debris accounted for 52% of total debris during a 2003 coastal cleanup.4 Will policies keep some people from using city parks? Tobacco -free policies for public park areas ensure that all citizens have a healthy recreational environment. People go to parks to exercise or relax, not to use tobacco. Smokers work, shop, travel, and reside in smoke-free environments every day. No court has determined that smoking is a constitutionally protected rights Aren't tobacco -free policies for parks a needless regulation? These policies are similar to those prohibiting alcohol and litter or requiring that pets be leashed. It is the duty of policy makers to enact policies that protect the health of their citizens. 3 Perry, C. (1999). Creating Health Behavior Change: How to Develop Community -Wide Programs for Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ' The Ocean Conservancy. (2004). International Coastal Cleanup 2003 Minnesota Summary Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.coastalcleanup.org. 5 Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. (2004). "Legal Authority to Regulate Smoking and Common Legal Threats and Challenges" City -Owned Outdoor Recreational Facilities Model Tobacco -Free Policy WHEREAS, the City believes that tobacco use in the proximity of children and adults engaging in or watching outdoor recreational activities at City -owned or operated facilities is detrimental to their health and can be offensive to those using such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has a unique opportunity to create and sustain an environment that supports a non -tobacco norm through a tobacco -free policy, rule enforcement, and adult -peer role modeling on City -owned outdoor recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the City believes parents, leaders, and officials involved in recreation are role models for youth and can have a positive effect on the lifestyle choices they make; and WHEREAS, the tobacco industry advertises at and sponsors recreational events to foster a connection between tobacco use and recreation; and WHEREAS, cigarettes, once consumed in public spaces, are often discarded on the ground requiring additional maintenance expenses, diminish the beauty of the City's recreational facilities, and pose a risk to toddlers due to ingestion; and WHEREAS, the City Park & Recreation Board determines that the prohibition of tobacco use at the City's recreational facilities serves to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of our City. Section 1: Tobacco use prohibited in outdoor recreational facilities No person shall use any form of tobacco at or on any City -owned or operated outdoor recreational facilities, including the restrooms, spectator and concession areas. These facilities include [insert specific facilities here, e.g. playgrounds, athletic fields, beaches, aquatic areas, parks, and walking/hiking trails]. Section 2: Enforcement 1. Appropriate signs shall be posted in the above specified areas. 2. The community, especially facility users and staff, will be notified about this policy. 3. Staff will make periodic observations of recreational facilities to monitor for compliance. 4. Any person found violating this policy may be subject to immediate ejection from the recreation facility for the remainder of the event. Section 3: Effective Date This policy statement is effective immediately upon the date of adoption. Appropriate City Official Date -444 City of ® Champlin 1. Guideline Statement Park & Recreation Tobacco -Free Park Oystem Policy City of Champlin Parks and Recreation Tobacco -Free Policy is designed to protect the health, welfare, and safety of our park patrons. 2. Policy Statement The City of Champlin is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: • Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or watching recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. • Tobacco products consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. • As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials, we are thought of as role models and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. 3. Tobacco -Free Facilities The City of Champlin does not allow the use of tobacco products on City -owned park land, recreational facilities, City facilities, and open space. 4. Compliance Procedures The emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco -Free parks and recreation policy is through voluntary compliance: • Appropriate City -owned park land, recreational facilities, open space will be signed. • City of Champlin staff will meet with activity organizations and \ or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" regulations. • City staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 5. Adoption date: May 10, 2004