4.3. SR 08-21-2000Tity of
iver
MEMORANDUM
Item# ~,. B.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Co~
Michele McPherso~', Director of Planning
August 21, 2000
Park and Recreation Update - August 2000
This is the monthly update of park and recreation activities for month of August
2000.
Tree Preservation
On July 12, 2000, the Park and Recreation and Planning Commissions
conducted a joint meeting. At that meeting, the issues of adequate park land and
tree preservation were discussed by the Commissions. The Planning
Commission requested that a discussion of neighborhood parks be conducted to
ensure that the Planning Commission understood the direction that the Park and
Recreation Commission is moving toward in regard to continued development of
the City's park and recreation system. No specific action resulted as part of this
discussion, other than to continue to support recommendations for expansion of
the City's park system.
The Commissions discussed at length the method by which a tree preservation
ordinance could be implemented. Both Commissions are concerned with the
loss of trees as part of developments and as the City continues to develop the
park system. Attached for the Council's information is the excerpt from the July
12th minutes regarding this issue. The Commissions voted unanimously to
recommend the following to the City Council:
COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE FOR A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. IT IS FURTHER
RECOMMENDED THAT THE TASK FORCE INCLUDE THE COUNTY FORESTER AND
REPRESENTATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, AND DEVELOPER AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER
COMMUNITY. COMMISSIONER REITSMA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 13-0.
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to Mayor and City Council
August P&R Update
August 21, 2000
Page 2
Staff requests that the City Council provide further direction regarding the
Commissions' recommendation to the Council regarding establishment of
a tree preservation task force to implement a tree preservation ordinance.
Development of Hillside Park
The Commission has endorsed a request from a nonprofit group of mountain
bikers (BLAST), in regards to the development of mountain bike trails in the
Hillside City Park located south of County Road 12. Attached for the Council's
information is a description of the group and their proposed use of Hillside City
Park for mountain bike purposes. The Commission, at its June meeting, voted to
endorse the mountain bike development in Hillside City Park.
The BLAST group is very well organized and has a source of funds to develop
and maintain the mountain bike trails that they will construct. They also will
construct a parking area near the front gate to provide parking for users of the
park. This group has built and maintained a complex series of trails on city-
owned land in Milaca (see attached). Staff will be preparing a park use
agreement which outlines the 10 conditions that the Commission endorsed at
their June meeting regarding this group's use of Hillside City Park.
fO-Year Capital Improvements Budget
Attached for the Council's information is a preliminary 10-year capital
improvement budget for park development purposes. No action by the Council is
requested regarding this issue at this time, however, staff welcomes any
feedback the Council may have regarding the proposed budget expenditures.
The budgeted items are based on the Commission's recent discussions and
prioritizations of improvements for the park system.
2000 Park Improvements
The playground in Country Crossings 3rd has been completed and the Devine
barn was moved in late July. Staff will present a short 4-minute video
encapsulating park improvements to date at the City Council meeting.
S:\PLANNING~vllCHMC\CCREPRTS~p&raug.doc
JOINT MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL - TRAINING ROOM
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000
Park and Recreation Commissioners Present: Chair Kuester, Commissioners Dave
Anderson, Dana Anderson, Huberty, Peterson, Sladek and Westrum.
Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Baker, Kuester,
Schuster and Chambers
Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Debbie Huebner,
Recording Secretary
Call Meetinq To Order
The joint meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning
Commission was called to order by Chair Kuester.
Nei.qhborhood Parks
Commissioner Louise Kuester questioned how accurate the existing Master Park
Plan is, regarding park locations, and also, what the priorities are for determining
where area-wide parks are placed. She expressed concern for the lack of
neighborhood parks east of Highway 169 and asked if it was the intent of the Park
and Recreation Commission to provide a future regional park to serve residents in
this area. Commissioner Kuester stated she felt more neighborhood parks are
needed.
Chair John Kuester explained that the Park and Recreation Commission is in the
process of updating the Master Park Plan to determine if the location and the
number of area-wide parks and neighborhood parks are appropriate. He did not
feel it was a question of "large" versus "small", but rather, what the need is in a
particular area.
Commissioner Baker also felt there is a need for neighborhood parks.
Michele McPherson explained how parks are sized. She noted that visibility and
access are important when dealing with smaller neighborhood parks.
Commissioner Baker felt it was important for neighborhood parks to be close
enough so that children can get to them on their own. He felt that Deerfield 4th
Park should have been larger.
Chair John Kuester stated that the city has park land available but no money to
develop. He explained that as each plat comes in, the Park and Recreation
Commission must determine how it fits in with the overall Park Master Plan.
Joint Park & Recreation/Planning Commission Meeting Page 2
July 12, 2000
Ms. McPherson felt that the Park and Recreation Commission is moving more
toward a proactive stance, rather than a reactive one in working with
developers.
Chair Mesich felt that the City has been very liberal with builders and that it needs
to be more demanding. He felt the City should have gotten mare land with the
Trout Brook Farms development and was concerned that there will be no parking
available for park users.
Commissioner Dave Anderson expressed his appreciation to the Planning
Commissioner for their support. He stated that often at the Council level the park
dedication recommendations are cut considerably. He felt it was important for
the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission to work
cooperatively to get their message to the City Council.
Commissioner Huberty felt that it is important that the developer knows early in
the process of what the Commission wants.
Commissioner Dana Anderson stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is
looking for quality land which is more suitable for recreation, as compared to
some of the Iow, wet park land which was dedicated in the past. He explained
that the Commission has set criteria for park land which includes accessibility and
visibility from a city street, rather than tucked back behind someone's backyard,
availability of parking, and connection to city trails and other parks. Ms.
McPherson stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is in the processing
reviewing the topography of "future parks" designated on the Master Park Plan.
Commissioner John Kuester stated that the Commission feels the City now has
some valuable natural park areas, but now needs to move toward acquiring
more open and level property, suitable for recreational use, in order to have a
balance of park land.
Commission Reitsma asked how the Planning Commission felt about the proposal
partnership with the School District for park land in conjunction with a new
elementary school on County Road 12. Chair Mesich stated that he felt it seems
like a natural partnership, but that the city must be comfortable that they are
getting something for their money.
3. Tree Preservation
Commissioner Reitsma stated that he felt there is a need to establish guidelines or
standards for tree preservation.
Ms. McPherson explained that the City currently does not have any standards in
place. She stated that the Planning Department is trying to deal with tree
preservation as a condition of new plats, but does not have the staff to do the
inspections.
Chair Mesich stated that he felt the city would need a forester on staff if a tree
preservation ordinance were adopted.
Joint Park & Recreation/Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
July 12, 2000
Commissioner Huberty stated that she was told by a developer that tree
requirements are not checked by the City. Ms. McPherson stated that the City
requires a performance bond to insure that conditions are met, including trees
and oJher landscaping. Staff is following up on ensuring plat conditions are met.
Commissioner Reitsma asked who would initiate a tree preservation ordinance.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff will initiate the ordinance for review by the
Planning Commission. She noted that the Planning Commission has a number of
issues they will be dealing with including the Comprehensive Plan and the cluster
ordinance.
Commissioner Dave Anderson suggested that a steering committee be formed
for reviewing the tree preservation ordinance. He felt the County Forester, Tim
Edgeton, should be included in the committee as well as representation from the
Planning Commission, Park & Recreation Commission, City Council, and the
development and property owner community.
Commissioner Louise Kuester noted that the Planning Commission previously sent
a tree preservation ordinance to the City Council for approval and it was thrown
out.
Chair Mesich felt the issue is very complex. He stated he has concerns regarding
regulation of tree cutting by individual property owners, such as cutting trees to
build a pole barn on a single lot.
Commissioner Schuster stated that he felt each development site is different, and
that trees cannot be saved everywhere. He felt that in some cases, such as for
commercial development, it may be more appropriate to replace trees by
planting them in another area of the city.
Ms. McPherson stated that there are no standards or replacement program in
place. Currently, the only control the City has is through the platting process.
COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE FOR A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. IT IS FURTHER
RECOMMENDED THAT THE TASK FORCE INCLUDE THE COUNTY FORESTER AND
REPRESENTATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL, AND DEVELOPER AND INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER
COMMUNITY. COMMISSIONER REITSMA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 13-0.
4. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Kuester adjourned the meeting.
The joint meeting of the Elk River Park & Recreation Commission and Planning
Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Huebner
Recording Secretary
From: Bob Mueller <bob@insitesinc. net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:25:29 -0500
To: <swensman@ci.elk-river. mn.us>, Tim Dalton
<tim.dalton@princeton.k12.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Hillside Park
Hi Steve.
In my discussions with Tim I have mentioned the importance of developing
course that is at least 6miles of single track. Doing so will encourage
riders to come from a distance. If the trails are short they only encourage
local riders to use them. Please keep this in mind in presenting this to
the staff. I do feel that 80 acres is enough land to present a challenging
course of this length and the the topography with elevation and woods
presents opoortunit es to create a challenging and memorable course with
many techn{cal switch backs. The terra n presents a course a course that
· s thru the hillsides, being sensitive to the terrain by not allowing
~olnn~I straight runs that cause "channelized" erosion. In essence the trail
will weave and switch back through the terrain taking advantage of the
natural features, preserving all trees, cutting out only brush. 2 or 3
major climbs and descents up and down the northeast end of the park(the
areas with the most elevation) will be the signature trail sections of the
course·
I~oth Tim and myself believe that holding mountain bike events every year at
the ark will keep the sport alive and well in the park. It can also
presP~nt a source of donations and funds to for purchases directly related to
the trails. The BLAST can build and design a trail through its Blast Big
Trail Program. This program gives riders the incentive to build trail and
get race fee perks in the process. These costs are differed to free entries
to tra I builders. It work and s the way we get th rigs done. We can
donate our time which is an immeasurable va ue, in turn we can ho d events
and drive the interest in the park to the next level. This is what we have
done in Milaca and what we are presently doing in Monticello.
Sincerely
Bob Muelller, RLA, Clarb Certified
President
INSITES
http://www.insitesinc.net
SITE PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Bob Nlu ell er
O'S econ'd Avenue ,N'o rth
PIy re'out h Minnesota 554"47
612-476.9573
fax 6 I 2'.47~..49:~9 '
MILACA MOUNTAIN BIKE PARK
no motorized vehicles allowed
respect people on foot, respect the trail and fellow riders
BLAST
PROMOTIONS
.vel'
lNG
DEPARTME
Draft Park Capital Improvement Plan
2000-2010
Last update: June 30, 2000
Est. Cost* Park Improvement Park Improvement Park Improvement Park Improvement !Park Improvement
Park Improvement 2000 200t Est. Cost Park Improvement 2002 Est. Cost 2003 Est. Cost Park Improvement 2004 Est. Cost 2005 Est. Cost 2006 Est. Cost 2007
Tmtt Brook Farms $163,598.00
Deedield 4 Playground
Playground, CC 3rd $30,000.00 Barrington, all $24,400.00 Addition $10,000.00 CC 3rd full court $10,000.00 Playground. YAC $30,000.00 Undeveloped Park Iml: $10,000.0~ Undeveloped Park Imp $10,000.00 Undeveloped Park Imp
Meadowvale Heights
Amenities CC 3rd $1,750.00 Shelter WT Park $20,000.00 Undeveloped Park Imp $10,000.00 Undeveloped Park Imp $10,000.0(3 Undeveloped Park Imp $10,000.00 Playground, Hillside 5 $30,000.00 Hillside 5 basketball $10,000.00 ~rairie restoration
Meadowvale Heights Meadowvale Heights
UndevelopedParklmp $10,000.00 Undeveloped Park lm $10,000.00 Baldwin. all $15,700.00 Hillside51andscape $13,400.0~ seeding $600.00 gazebo $25,000.00
Meadowvale Heights
Country Crossing 1st $9,000.00 CC 3rd Amenities $6,500.00 Playground, Miss Oaks $25,000.00i Ridgewood East, all $16,300.0~ buffer $5,000.00
Meadow Park Play $1,000.00 Deedield4Wall $3,000.00 Deedield4Landscape $4,900.001 Moldenaurlandscape $2,500.00
Landscape, Miss Oaks $2,800.00 Deerfield 4 Fence $2,000.00
Open Field, 191 1/2 Ave $3,000.00 Deerfleld 4 Landscape $1,250.00
YAC Design Work $5,000.00
Subtotal $62,550.00 Subtotal $67,150.00 Subtotal $65,600.0(3 Subtotal $49,700.00 Subtotal $48,100.00 Subtotal $40,000.00 Subtotal $45,000.00 Subtotal
Remainder $2,450.00 Remainder -$2,150.00 Remainder -$600.00 Remainder $15,300.00 Remainder $16,900.00 Remainder $25,000.00 Remainder $20,000.00 Remainder
Improvements by Others
Lions Park Tot Lot $5,000.00
Omno Ticket Booth
Trail Improvem~,~;~ Trail Improvements Trail Improvements I Trail Improvements Trail Improvements Trail Improvements Trail Improvements
Trail Improvements 2000 Est. Cost 2001 Est. Cost 2002 Est. Cost 2003 Est. Cost 12004 Est. Cost 2005 Est. Cost 2006 Est. Cost 2007
Trail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.0~ Trail Budget $9,100.00 ]'rail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.0(] Trail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget
Meadovale Heights bit Meadowvale Heights
Move Trail CC 3rd $3,000.00 CC 3rd Walking Trail $1,600.00 Hillside 5 woodcbip trail $3,000.00 Hillside 5 bit. Trails $9,700.00 bail along road $15,000.00 Deerfield 2nd sidewalk $7,000.00 boardwalk
Hillside 5 concrete walk $2,900.00
x
Park improvement Park Improvement Park Improvement I
Est. Cost ~008 Est. Cost 2009 Est. Cost 20t0lest' Cost Totals
Beginning Balance as of June 30. 2000 $783,231.37
$619,633.37;
~ ~ ~ ~~ .... ,,: ~ $715,000.00!
$10,000.00 Undeveloped Park ImF $10,000.0~ Undeveloped Park Imp $10,000.00 Undeveloped Park ImF $10,000.0C
Meadowvale Heights Meadowvale Heights
$13,000.00 )ic~icsheiter $25,000.(~ ~ic~icshelter $25,000.00
$23,000.00 Subtotal $35,000.0~ Subtotal $35,000.00 Subtotal $10,000.0C $481,100.00
$42,000.00 Remainder $30,000.0(] Remainder $30,000.00 Remainder $55,000.00 $138,533.37
Trail Improvements Trail Improvements Trail Improvements
Est. Cost 2008 Est. Cost 2009 Est. Cost 2010 Est. Cost Totals
$9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.00 Trail Budget $9,100.0C $100,100.00
$15,000.00 $54,300.00
Pro~ected Ending] Balance $84,233.37
I