6.1. - 6.3. SR 08-03-1998~ity of
MEMORANDUM
Item #6.1. - 6.3.
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
DATE:
Pat Klaers, City Ad~~t~or
August 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Trott Brook Farms Proposal
The Trott Brook Farms residential project has been discussed and reviewed
at numerous Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission
meetings over the past year. The developers received a Planning
Commission recommendation on the project (rezoning, plat, and CUP) on
July 28, 1998. Most of the issues of concern between the city and the
developers had been reviewed, analyzed, compromised, etc. in the last month,
and I believe that everyone is reasonably satisfied with the recommendation
from the Planning Commission.
One issue that always comes up with large residential developments is
whether or not enough park land is being dedicated to meet the needs of the
neighborhood. It appears that the Park and Recreation Commission is
comfortable with the proposal (see attached material from Planner Steve
Wensman.) The only real issue of disagreement between the city and the
developer has to do with the number of townhouse units in the southwest
quadrant of the proposal. The Commission is recommending a total of 20
fewer townhouses than what was proposed and the developers have
requested only 4 fewer than proposed. The Commission has some sound
reasons for recommending the 20 unit reduction. Please see the attached
material from Assistant City Planner Scott Harlicker and City Engineer
Terry Maurer on this issue.
There should be no mistake about this proposal being a '%ig deal" for the city.
We have never seen a project of this scope and magnitude submitted to the
city all at once. This project contains over 600 living units built on 360 gross
acres, and will be butt out in 5 to 7 years.
Approval of this planning project requires a commitment from the city to
provide sewer and water to the site. The city is beginning the State Statute
429 assessment process with a September 28, 1998, pubhc hearing on the
trunk sewer and water improvement project. The question for the City
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Trott Brook Farms Proposal
August 3, 1998
Page Two
Council this fall (assuming the Trott Brook Farms project is approved) is not
if a trunk sewer and water project in east Elk River is going to happen, but
what size of a project is going to happen. Even the small project is bigger
than anything we have ever done and is going to require assessments to
landowners who are not interested in receiving municipal services, or paying
the costs for these services.
The Trott Brook Farms proposal is complex and took a number of meetings
to be comprehended at the Planning Commission level. It is appropriate for
the first City Council presentation on this project to be given in a
worksession environment (in the training room) where we can better display
and use maps and graphics.
On Monday it is planned that the developers will make a 20-30 minute
presentation on their proposal. Following this presentation staff will review
the project with the City Council in "broad categories." These broad
categories include:
1.) land use issues
2.) environmental issues
3.) street and utility issues
4.) grading and drainage issues
5.) park and recreation issues
6.) miscellaneous issues.
Staff and developers need to get some Council reaction to the proposal and
direction for any necessary changes. It is anticipated that staff and
developers will receive Council feedback on Monday and that the project will
move forward for formal consideration on August 17, 1998.
The developers hope to have models available for the spring Parade of Homes
event. (They will have to use satelhte facilities until utilities are available
later in the summer.) After Council approval of the plat there is still a lot of
work that needs to be done before a developers agreement is signed and
building permits are obtained for the construction of model homes.
In general, staff is in support of the Trott Brook Farms proposal as
recommended by the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation
Commission, and also supports extension of trunk utilities to this site in
1999.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\council\trottpro.doc
~ity of
iver
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Item #
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlieker, Planning Assistant
August 3, 1998
Request by CPDC for Zone Change,
Conditional Use Permit and
Preliminary Plat Approval, Public
Hearing Case No. ZC 97-1, CU 97-1
and P 97-8
Planning Commission Recommendation
The project consists of developing 361 acres into a residential development
with a mixture of townhouses and single family homes. The Planning
Commission has reviewed this project 3 times in 1998 and 2 times in 1997.
The issues raised by staff and the Commission have been worked out with
the exception of density in a portion of one of the townhouse developments.
Attached are copies of the development summary and development plans
submitted July 7th. Since these were distributed, the project has been revised
to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Those changes are
summarized in the attached memo from the City Engineer dated July 23,
1998. Also attached for your review are minutes from the Planning
Commission meetings and Steve Wensman's memo on parks and trails..
At the July 28th Planning Commission meeting the Commission's discussion
centered on the issue of density of the townhouse development in the
southwest corner of the site. The Commission felt the amount of open space
needs to be increased and the design modified. Commissioner Cote suggested
the density for the central portion of that townhouse development be reduced
to 6.5 units per acre.
The Commission recommended approval of CPDC's request for a rezoning
from Rlc (Single Family Residential) and Rle (Single Family Residential) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development), approval of the preliminary plat request
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/P97-8
August 3, 1998
Page 2
and approval of the conditional use permit for the PUD. The
recommendations included the following conditions:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning
from Rle (Single Family Residential) and Rlc (Single Family Residential) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development) based on the following findings:
1. Recently approved changes to the road network has improved
transportation to warrant a rezoning.
2. A planned unit development allows a comprehensive review of developing
the property.
3. The proposed rezoning will be consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
4. A planned unit development allows for flexibility in subdivision design.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat
and conditional use permit for the PUD with the following conditions:
Land Use
The number of townhouses in Block 2 of the townhouse development in
the southwest corner of the site be reduced by 16 additional units, from
152 to136 total units.
Note: Commissioner Cote set the number of units in this condition by
multiplying the number of acres in this townhouse development (21 ac.) by a
desired density (6.5 units per acre).
2. That the developer work with staff to create a larger central open space in
the townhouse development in the southwest corner of the plat.
3. That the developer demonstrate on the grading plan how the Trott Brook
trail is accessed from Street O.
4. Elevations for the townhouse developments be submitted for review and
approval.
5. Signage for the development shall be reviewed and approved by staff.
6. All comments raised by the Department of Natural Resources shall be
incorporated into the plat.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scottktbpcrec.doc
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/P97-8
August 3, 1998
Page 3
o
Each single family lot shall receive I street tree and 1 front yard tree;
corner lots shall receive 1 street tree and I front yard tree per street
frontage.
8. A landscaping plan for the townhouse developments shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City.
o
That the developer provide a pedestrian and maintenance vehicle corridor
to Outlet F from street n as per city ordinance to be coordinated with a
sewer and water corridor to the East of the plat.
10. Setback of 25 feet from the front property lines on all streets except
Streets A, F, J, O, R and S
Engineering
1. All comments of the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the plans.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits a development plan be
submitted outlining style of house and finished grades on each lot.
3. All streets be built to City standards with the exception of Street A which
will be larger.
Environmental
1. All comments from the DNR shall be incorporated into the plans.
2. All comments of the City Engineer be incorporated into the plans.
3. Recommendations of Tim Edgeton of the Sherburne County Tree Board be
incorporated into the plans.
Miscellaneous
1. A Developers Agreement and PUD agreement shall be signed and
recorded prior to recording the plat.
2. Plat approval is contingent upon the rezoning and conditional use permit
for a planned unit development being approved.
3. Park dedication fees be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\tbpcrec.doc
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/P97-8
August 3, 1998
Page 4
4. Surface water management fees be paid prior to releasing the plat for
recording.
5. Homeowners Association documents shall be reviewed by the City prior
to releasing the plat for recording.
6. Street Lights shall be installed per Elk River Utilities recommendations.
7. The City accept Outlot F as a charitable contribution from the developer.
8. A letter of credit be provided to the City in the amount of 100% of the
costs of public improvements.
o
upon completing all of the improvements and having them accepted by the
City, a warranty bond in the amount of 25 % of the improvement costs
shall be submitted to the City for a one year period.
10. Water availability charge be paid prior to releasing the plat for recording
11. All necessary permit shall be received prior to commencing work within
any easements.
12. All comments in Phil Hals, the Street/Park Superintendent, shall be
incorporated into the plans.
13. All mailboxes shall be clustered.
14. Landscape easements shall be included around all development and
neighborhood signs.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\tbpcrec.doc
Howard R, Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
July 23, 1998
File: 800111J-0240
I'0~[LTI~I~ BGIXEEILN
Formerly MSA
Consulting Engineers
Chairman and Planning Commission
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: TROTT BROOK FARMS
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Since the Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 1998 to review the Trott Brook
Farms proposal, staff has had an opportunity to meet with the Developer's engineer to
discuss a number of the issues raised that evening. This memo will only touch on a
few of the main issues that the Developer has changed or. convinced staff to change its
position on. These are as follows:
A. Lot Width
The proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 14th had 47 of 350
single-family lots not meeting an 80-foot width at the building setback line. The
Developer has revised the layout and reduced the number of lots not meeting
80 feet from 47 to 14. These fourteen lots consist of five lots, 19 through 23,
located in Cul-de-sac T, five lots, 17 through 21, located in Cul-de-sac U, and
four lots, 7, 8, 14, and 15, located on Street O. Eleven of these fourteen lots
are pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots, substantially larger in square footage than the
minimum required by the ordinance. Three of the lots, one in Cul-de-sac T and
two on Street O are approximately rectangular, with lot widths of 73 feet to 75
feet. These lots can be easily dealt with in the development plan by restricting
the type and style of houses permitted. One other point worth mentioning is that
Lots 7 and 8 are narrower because Lot 6 has a slightly larger width, allowing for
a landscape screening area along the east side to screen the views from Street
A. Staff would recommend approval of the new concept as it relates to lot
widths.
B. Setback Variance
As indicated in the Developer's submittal, they are asking for a setback variance
from 30 feet to 25 feet, in an effort to save trees. The setback variance is not
being requested on Streets A, F, J, O, R, or S. These streets would be
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 612/644-4389 fax 612/644-9446 toll free 800/888-2923
Planning Commission
July 23, 1998
Page 2
considered the main routes within the development. The other streets where
the setback variance is being requested are either cul-de-sacs or lesser-traveled
streets. Staff can support this request for setback variance from 30 feet to 25
feet on the streets mentioned.
C. Southwest Area Townhouse Density
The Developer has proposed removing four units from the 156 total. These four
units would come out of the block of 8-plexes formed by StreetS. This helps to
open up the green space between buildings. Staff would recommend that an
additional eight units for a total of twelve be taken out of this same block. Staff
feels that with twelve less units, the entire block could be reconfigured to give
the perception of green space tying into most of the units in this area.
No reduction in the number of units is proposed by the Developer for the 85-unit
townhouse development in the southeast corner. Staff feels that this total
number of units is acceptable because of the open space distribution among the
buildings. There are two wetlands and a pipeline easement that are spread
throughout this development, giving the feeling of more openness to each of the
units.
D. County Road 12 Right-of-Way
Sherburne County has requested 70 feet of additional right-of-way, measured
from centerline along County Road 12. In addition to this, the City would
receive a 10-foot drainage and utility easement. The Developer has indicated
willingness to provide a 60-foot right-of-way and a 20-foot drainage and utility
easement, with the easement allowing the placement of the detached
pedestrian trail. Dave Schwarting, County Engineer, was unable to attend the
meeting with City staff, and the Developer's engineer. City staff believes that
this proposal of a 60-foot right-of-way with up to a 20-foot drainage and utility
easement is a workable solution and will coordinate with the County Engineer to
verify whether it meets th~ County's needs as well.
E. Connecting Cul-de-sacs
Previously, staff had recommended eliminating Cul-de-sac F by connecting it to
Street S. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Developer had
indicated a desire not to do this for the loss of the neighborhood concept. His
engineers had indicated the difficulty of making this connection. We have had
an opportunity to look at this further with the Developer's engineers, and would
concur with their analysis that it is a difficult connection to make, due to the
vertical differences in elevation. Therefore, staff would recommend that this not
be pursued any further.
Howard R, Green Company
\\Elkriver~sys\S H R D O C,¢,D Mi N\E N Gl N E E ik~p,~[2~(~.[DT~J e ENGINEERS