6.4. SR 01-16-2001City of
E
River
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Item #
6.4.
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Senior Planne, r~
January 16, 2001
Request for Preliminary Plat of Hillside Estates Eighth
Addition, Public Hearing Case No. P 00-18
Request
Phoenix Enterprises requests Preliminary Plat approval of Hillside Estates Eighth
Addition, a 104-1ot single-family residential subdivision in the Rle zoning district.
Loca~on
General Description: West of Auburn St, east of Highway 169 and South of 197th
Avenue. That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 33, Range 26 and
the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 33, Range 26,
Sherburne County, Minnesota lying easterly of U.S. Highway 169, except that part
platted... (Hillside developments), together with Outlot A and B Hillside Estates 1st
Addition and Outlot B, Hillside Estates Fourth Addition.
Zoning / Land Use
Rle (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
· Location Map
· Preliminary Plat, dated 12/20/00
· Grading and Erosion Control Plan (3 pages), dated 12/20/00
· Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan, dated 12/20/00
· Howard IR. Green Memorandums, dated December 21, 2000 and January 10,2001
· Exhibit C, Hillside Estates Park and Trail Plan, dated November 22, 2000
· Section 1008.18, Park Dedication Requirements
· Letter from Cheryl Becker
· Map of Lot Averaging for all of Hillside Estates
· Minutes of Park and Recreation meeting of 2/9~00 and 11/8/00
· Memo from the Chief of Police and Fire Chief
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 · Fax (763) 441-7425
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 2
Overview:
The preliminary plat dated December 20, 2000, is for a 104 lot single-family residential
subdivision on 62.74 acres in the Rle zoning district. Hillside Estates Eighth Addition is
the last section of Hillside Estates to be developed. Hillside Estates encompasses about
190 acres and began developing in 1994. The proposed subdivision includes a 4.27 acre
(Outlot D) Park with trails in the adjacent power line corridor (Outlots B and C). Together
the park and trail/utility corridor encompass 13.43 acres. Credit for park dedication will
be adjusted to reflect the amount of utility corridors, wetlands and steep slopes
encumbering the property.
Analysis:
Existing Conditions
The site is located in the woods behind Menards, south of 197th Avenue and north of
Hillside Estates 1st Addition. The site consists of rolling hills and mature Oak woods and
several wetlands as has been typical in previous Hillside Estates developments.
Crossing the site are two power line easements, a 240 foot wide Northern States Power
power line easement and a smaller 60 foot wide United Power Association power line
easement. Within the woods, staff found numerous ATV/pedestrian trails that connect
the Hillside 5th and 2nd Additions to the commercial area along Highway 169.
Phasing
No phasing of the development has been indicated, however, the developer has stated
that the first phase would include connecting Dodge Street to 196th Lane near Menards.
This is being done to to encourage the new traffic to drive west rather than using Auburn
Street.
Lot Configuration/Lot Averaging
All the proposed lots meet or exceed the dimensional requirements of the Rle zoning
district including the 12,000 SF minimum lot area requirement. The lots range in size
from 12,000 SF to 46,000 SF, with the average lot size being 16,812 SF. The average
lot size of the other phases of Hillside Estates are as follows:
Hillside Estates 1st
Hillside Estates 4th
Hillside Estates 9th
18,000 SF
13,500 SF
20,700 SF
The areas that these phases include are shown on the attached map.
Wetland Conservation Act
The developer has shown areas of fill and wetland mitigation, which will require a
Technical Panel review and approval as required by the Wetland Conservation Act. As
proposed, each of the four wetlands in the development will be partially filled to
s:\planning\scott\pO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 3
accommodate lots or grading. Lot 11, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 2 require filling of
wetlands.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
(See the Attached Howard R. Green Memorandum).
Utilities
(See the Attached Howard R. Green Memorandum).
Tree Preservation
Most of the existing woods will be removed with construction in order to accommodate
the required grading. All trees shown as preserved shall be protected prior to clearing or
site grading by fencing the drip line of protected trees and the limit of grading with a
snow fence to prevent unnecessary grading, compaction, or storage of debris or
equipment.
50-Foot No Cut Zone
A condition of the Hillside Crossings commercial development conditional use permit
stipulated that a 50-foot buffer was to be maintained between the commercial area and
future residential development. This buffer area is presently shown inclusive of the
required back yard area. No additional buffer area has been provided behind Menards.
Landscaping
The Landscape and Tree Preservation Plan conforms to City requirements. No
landscaping has been proposed for the park area; however, staff has prepared a
landscape plan for the park with conifers and shrub plantings along the back yards of
existing residential lots. (See attached Exhibit C, Hillside Estates Park and Trail Plan).
Development Signs
No development signs have been indicated.
Roads
The preliminary plat now shows a reconfigured road layout that more closely resembles
an early concept plan for the area. Dodge Street will extend north from its present
location to a T intersection with a three way stop. This has been done in response to
comments regarding cut-through traffic on Dodge heard during the November 28th public
hearing.
Dodge Street is currently an 863 foot long temporary dead-end. There has been a great
deal of discussion regarding creating a permanent cul de sac on Dodge Street, similar to
what has been proposed for Auburn Street. The maximum length for a cul de sac is 700
feet, the current street already exceeds the maximum length, adding additional length for
a cul de sac will only increase the non-conformity. Chief of Police Zerwas has indicated
s:\planning\scott\pO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 4
in his attached memo that there are also public safety concerns regarding turning Dodge
Street into a cul de sac.
Dodge Street and 196th Lane will provide the only ingress and egress to and from the
plat. 196th Lane is presently constructed to the east property line adjacent to Menards.
There will be six new cul-de-sacs, in part due to the rolling terrain and wetlands. Snow
storage easements will be required in each cul-de-sac as has been required in other
developments.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be constructed along the north side of 195th Ave, the east side of Dodge
St. and on the north side of 196th Lane to provide a pedestrian circulation loop that
connects the park to the commercial area along Highway 169. The Commission and
some of the public had requested that a sidewalk be added along Dodge Street to 193rd.
Parks and Trails
The proposed Park, Outlot D, is 4.27 acres in size of which about half is wetland, utility
easement or steep slope. A 60-foot wide powerline easement crosses the Park in a
north-south direction and a watermain easement crosses the park in an east-west
direction. A play structure, tennis court and basketball court are proposed amenities for
the park. Staff has provided a landscape plan that identifies screening of the backyard
of existing homes.
Outlots B and C, the 240 feet wide Northern States Power power line corridor combined
are 9.16 acres in size and will be used as a trail corridor linking the Hillside 5th Addition
Park, the new Hillside 8th Addition Park to 195th Circle and 196th Lane. The trail will be a
10 foot bituminous trail with a gradient of 8%, which will require grading in the utility
corridor. Outlot B is too steep for a bituminous trail, but may include a woodchip trail at a
later date if the Park and Recreation Commission determines that the amount of foot
traffic warrants one. To construct a woodchip trail, an easement will be required across
the commercial lot west of the plat. Together, the park and trail/utility corridor
encompass 13.43 acres and have adequate road frontage and enough flat area for the
proposed amenities. The attached Exhibit B, Hillside Park and Trail Plan, shows the
trail and park connections and proposed landscaping of the proposed Hillside 8th Park.
Park and Recreation Commission
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the Planning Commission and
Council accept the Park for park dedication, excluding the power corridor, steep slopes
and wetland from full dedication credit as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Also,
that the remaining Park Dedication requirements be accepted as a cash dedication in
lieu of land. The developer will install the trail as part of the public improvements and
will be reimbursed from the trail fund as required by City Ordinance.
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended the proposed location for park for
Hillside Estates 8th because it was centrally located and would better serve the residents
of the entire Hillside Estates development, it is in a relatively level area, and would not
require the removal of any trees in order to install improvements. There have been
several comments about placing the park behind Menards. The placement of the park
s:\planning\scottkpO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 5
behind Menards might serve as a buffer between Menards and the immediate
neighbors, but it would require the removal a substantial number of trees, is not centrally
located in the Hillside Estates development and would require significant grading.
The Park and Recreation Commission will be reconsidering the use of Hillside Estates
5th Addition Park in consideration of the amenities being proposed in the Hillside Estates
8th Park.
Planning Commission Meetinqs
On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the
preliminary plat of Hillside Estates Eighth Addition. At that time, the Commission
continued the public hearing to December 12, 2000 because of insufficient information
for review and of unresolved issues.
On December 12, 2000, the public hearing was again held. The public hearing was
again continued to the December 27th meeting because of unresolved issues and
because there was little time to review the submittal.
On December 12, the issues raised by staff, the Commission and the public include:
1. Excessive retaining wall heights.
2. Concerns regarding traffic on Dodge Street and 193r~Avenue.
3. Buffering between the residential and commercial districts.
4. Trails along back yards.
5. The park being located too close to the powerlines and that it should not be
placed behind the existing homes on Auburn.
6. Dodge Street as a cut-through road.
7. Concerns over loss of existing trees.
8. Concerns about the small size of lots.
9. The need for sidewalks along Dodge Street to 193rd Avenue.
At the December 27th meeting the applicant had submitted revised plans. The revisions
included eliminating a large retaining wall. Public comments at this meeting were, for the
most part, the same as those heard at the December 12th meeting. The main concerns
were increased traffic on Dodge Street and the need to turn the existing Dodge Street
into a cul de sac, the need for sidewalks on Dodge Street and the increase in traffic at
the intersection of 193rd Avenue and Evans Street. Issues raised by the Planning
Commission include:
1. The depth of the lots on Dodge Street behind Menards.
2. The large number of retaining walls.
3. Concern about Lot 11, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 2 because of the excessive
grading and wetland fill and whether they are suitable building sites. The
Commission recommended eliminating these two lots.
4. Buffering between the residential and commercial districts.
5. Concerns about the small size of lots.
6. Need for additional sidewalks, especially along Dodge Avenue.
7. Additional tree replacement.
s:\planning\scott\pO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 6
Since traffic on Dodge Street seemed to be the main concern raised by residents at the
3 public hearings, staff would like to provide the following background information:
In 1994 the City granted final plat approval to Hillside Estates 1st Addition.
Included as part of that plat was the construction of Dodge Street to its current
terminus. Dodge Street was platted up to the northern boundary of the plat; it
was always intended to be extended through to the north. The current length of
Dodge Street is 863 feet. A cul de sac would probably extend the length by at
about 150 for a total length of 1013 feet. The maximum length allowed for a cul
de sac is 700 feet. Furthermore, if Dodge Street was converted to a cul de sac,
Auburn Street would be the only north-south connection in the entire Hillside
Estates development.
Recommendation
After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission and staff recommend the City
Council approve the preliminary plat of Hillside Estates Eighth Addition for 102
single family lots with the following conditions:
THAT A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BE PREPARED OUTLINING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT APPROVAL AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE RECORDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT.
2. THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND
THAT:
A TECHNICAL PANEL REVIEW OF ANY FILLING OR MITIGATION OF WETLANDS.
· THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT INCLUDE LANGUAGE
THAT PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUCCESS OF THE WETLAND
MITIGATION ON THE DEVELOPER.
· THE DEVELOPER OBTAIN ALL THE APPLICABLE PERMITS PRIOR TO FILLING
ANY WETLANDS.
· A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BE
RECORDED ON THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS WITH THE RECORDING OF
THE FINAL PLAT.
· THAT A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
100% OF THE COSTS OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE COST OF
THE MITIGATION WORK.
· THAT THE DEVELOPER SUBMIT A WRITTEN MONITORING REPORT ON THE
REPLACEMENT WETLANDS ONE YEAR AFTER THIS MITIGATION WORK IS
COMPLETED AND THAT THIS REPORT BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO
RELEASING THE LETTER OF CREDIT.
3. THAT ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE ADDRESSED.
4. THAT STREET LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY ELK RIVER UTILITIES.
5. THAT A SNOW STORAGE EASEMENT BE PROVIDED IN THE CUL-DE-SACS PRIOR TO
RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING.
6. THAT THE 10 FOOT BITUMINOUS TRAIL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE PARK AS PART
OF THE PLAT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS.
s:\planning\scottkpO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council] P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 7
7. THAT THE PARK BE ACCEPTED TOWARDS PARK DEDICATION ( WITH A REDUCTION
FOR WETLAND, STEEP SLOPES AND UTILITY CORRIDOR) AND THE REMAINING
DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS BE ACCEPTED AS CASH IN LEIU OF LAND IN THE
AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL AND PAID PRIOR TO
RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING.
8. THAT PARK BOUNDARY MARKERS BE INSTALLED AS REQUIRED BY CITY
ORDINANCE.
9. THAT ALL THE MAIL BOXES IN THE CUL-DE-SACS BE CLUSTERED.
t0. THAT 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.
11. THAT A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEE IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE
CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR
RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY.
12. THAT A SEALCOAT FEE BE PAID TO THE CITY PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR
RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
13. THAT PRIOR TO CLEARING TREES OR GRADING, THE DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED
TREES AND THE LIMIT OF GRADING SHALL BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE TO
PREVENT UNNECESSARY GRADING, COMPACTION, OR STORAGE OF DEBRIS OR
EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE.
14. THAT THE DEVELOPER OBTAINS WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE UTILITIES TO
GRADE IN THE POWER LINE EASEMENTS.
15. THAT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BE
RECORDED OVER THE 50 FOOT BUFFER AREA ADJACENT THE COMMERCIAL
ZONING WITH THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT.
16. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED WHICH PROVIDES A MINIMUM OF 3
TREES PER LOT OR GROUPED PER STAFF APPROVAL.
17. LOT 15 BLOCK 2 AND LOT 11, BLOCK 5 BE ELIMINATED
18. THE RETAINING WALLS BE FENCED OR TERRACED PER BUILDING CODE
REQUIREMENTS.
19. THE DEVELOPER, HOMEOWNERS ON DODGE STREET AND THE CITY MEET TO
DISCUSS THE EXTENSION OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG DODGE STREET.
20. SIDEWALK BE ADDED TO THE WEST SIDE OF DODGE STREET.
21. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION BE
INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL:
THAT LOT 1, BLOCK 5, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PARK.
THAT A PAVED TRAIL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE POWER LINE CORRIDOR AS
FAR AS 196TM LANE THAT HAS A MAXIMUM GRADE OF 8% AND SIDE SLOPES NO
GREATER THAN 3:1.
s:\planning\scott\pO018cc.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/P 00-18
January 16, 2000
Page 8
3. THAT SIDEWALKS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAT TO CONNECT THE PARK
AND TRAILS TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE WEST.
4. THAT NO WETLANDS OR STORM PONDS BE ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE PARK
DEDICATION.
5. THAT IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND DEDICATED FOR PARK, TRAIL AND PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE PURPOSES INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FINISH GRADING,
GROUND COVER, CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFYING
PARK AND TRAIL BOUNDARIES WITH CITY APPROVED MARKERS.
6. THAT IN ADDITION TO THE LAND DEDICATED FOR PARK, THE DEVELOPER PAY
IN CASH THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION.
7. PARK BOUNDARY MARKERS BE INSTALLED, CLEARLY STATING PARK
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION.
s:\planning\scott\pO018cc.doc
LOCATION
LOCATION
MAP
CASE' p 00-18
f/
Howard R, Green Qompany
CON!SULTING ENGINEERS
December 21, 2000
File: 812590J-0240
Ms. Michele McPherson
Director of Planning
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330-0490
RE: HILLSIDE 8TH ADDITION
Dear Ms. McPherson:
As requested, we have reviewed the revised grading plan for the Hillside Estates 8th
Addition. The plan we reviewed was prepared by Pioneer Engineering and had a
revision date of December 12, 2000. There are a number of issues with this revised
grading plan. The major ones include the significant retaining walls that have been
added to eliminate all the wetland encroachment, the retaining walls and grading for the
most southerly lots on Dodge Street, lack of emergency overflow information for the
vadous ponds and drainage areas, and a number of more minor grading issues. Frank
Kriz of my office has redlined the grading plan and together we have discussed all of our
issues with Leon Opatz, P.E., from Pioneer Eng.ineedng, who prepared the plan. Mr.
Opatz discussed with me this afternoon each of these issues, stating that he understood
the issue and would make the revision necessary. With these changes, I believe that
the grading and erosion control plan will be approvable. One word of caution, however,
is that removal of the retaining walls adjacent to the wetlands may require some filling of
the wetlands. I indicated to Mr. Opatz that he would still have to go through the
Technical Evaluation Panel regarding the Wetland Conservation Act. He understood
that he would have to go through this process and that the Technical Evaluation Panel
may not approve the filling of the wetland, in which case one or more lots may be lost
from the development.
If you have any specific questions regarding issues of the grading and drainage plan,
please call.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Terry J. Maurer, P.E.
TJM:tw
O:~PROJ~812590j\0240~.tr 12-21-00 McPherson.doc
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
Howard R, Green Gompany
QQNSULTING ENGINEERS
January 10, 2001
File: 812590J-0240
Mr. Scott Hadicker
Senior Planner
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330-0490
RE: HILLSIDE ESTATES 8TH ADDITION
Dear Mr. Harlicker:
As requested, we have reviewed the most recent revised set of Hillside Estates 8th
Addition plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering and dated December 21, 2000. At this
point in time, the only significant change that has been made to these plans is the
elimination of the retaining walls adjacent to the wetland complexes at various locations
in the development. The grading plan now shows 3:1 slopes encroaching into the
various wetlands. As discussed at the Planning Commission meetings, this will require
that the project go through the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) relative to the Wetland
Conservation Act. As of today's date, a meeting of the TEP has not been scheduled.
All the other vadous comments we made on the previous grading and drainage plans
have not been addressed as of this date. However, on December 20, 2000, Leon Opatz,
P.E., of Pioneer Engineering, did send a letter to the City indicating that they have
received all of our comments and will be making all of the changes pdor to the final
submittal of the grading plan. I called Mr. Opatz yesterday to confirm that this is still his
intention, and he indicated that it is and they are working on these changes but do not
have them available at this point in time.
I have also reviewed our July 18, 1997, memo to the City Council regarding the
intersection of 193rd Avenue and Evans Street. At that point in time, traffic counts were
taken at that intersection. Two of the legs had over 5,200 vehicles per day. One leg had
over 3,200 vehicles per day, and the lowest leg had over 1,700 vehicles per day.
Obviously there has been significant development in this whole area in the past three
and a half years, and the development of the proposed Hillside Estates 8th Addition will
add even more traffic to this intersection. In 1997, we recommended the installation of
the 3-way stop at 193rd Avenue and Evans Street, and indicated that the intersection did
not currently meet any warrants for a traffic signal but may at a future date. At this time,
we would recommend that this intersection have the traffic recounted in the spdng of
2001 and the traffic control at the intersection be re-evaluated.
O:\PROJ~812590j\0240~tr 10-1 0-01 Hadicker. doc
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 ° 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
Mr. Scott Hadicker
January 10, 2001
Page Two
If you have any questions regarding this information, please call.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Te~~. M~aurer, P.E.
TJM:tw
O:~PROJ~812590j\0240%tr 10-10-01 Hadicker.doc
Howard R, Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Dec-20-O0 04:09P Pioneer_Engineering 1
PIONEER c,v,, Engineers. Land Planners 'Land Surveyors- Landscape Architects
engineering
December 20, 2000
Terry Maurer
Howard R. Green
1326 Energy Park Drive
St. Paul, MN 55108
RE:
HILLSIDE 8TM ADDITION
P.E. # 200342
Dear Mr. Maurer:
I received the marked up grading plan form Frank Kriz this afternoon and also talked to him
about his concerns. I will make the changes he is suggesting, including eliminating the high
retaining walls. I will also address all the other issues listed in your letter of November 22, 2000.
All these changes will be made when we submit the final plat.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to call me at
(763) 489-2272.
Sincerely,
PIONEER ENGINEERING P.A.
Leon P. Opatz. P.E.
Stephen Weasman, City of Elk River
Daryl Thompson, Phoenix Enterprises
2422 Enterprise Drive · Mendota Heights, Minnesota 551 20, (612) 681-1914 · Fax 681-9488
625 Highway 10 N.E. · Blaine, Minnesota 55434 · (612) 783-1880 · Fax 783-1883
1008 .18 - DEDICATION OF LAND OR CONTRIBUTION OF CASH FOR
PUBLIC PUI~.~OSE
1. In every plat, replat or subdivision cf land to be developed
for residential, commercial, cr industrial uses, or as a planned
unit development which includes such uses or any combination
5hereof, iC is reasonable to require that an amount cf land equal
in value to'ten percent (10%) cf the undeveloped land proposed to
be subdivided shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner
cr owners ~o %he City for parks, playgrounds, trails, or public
open space.
2. If the C/~y Council, in its sole discretion, determines that
~he land proposed to be dedicated is unsuitable for parks, then
the tract owner or owners ska!! contribute to the City, in lieu
of park land dedication, an amount cf cash not to exceed the fair
market value cf %he undeveloped land required to be dedicated, as
the City Council shall determine by resolution from time to time.
3. Previously platted Residential Proper~y on which park
dedication has not been received by the City, being replatted
with the same number cf lots and the same number cf dwelling
units, shall be exempt from all park land dedication
requirements. If ~he number cf lots or the number cf dwelling
units is increased, then park dedication shall be made based cn
the number of additional lots or the'number of additional
dwelling units.
4. Prior platted Commercial and Industrial land on which park
dedication has not been received by the City, being topis=ted
with the same land area, shall be exempt from all park dedication
requirements. If land area is being added to a previously
recorded plat, then additional park dedication-requirements shall
be based on the additional land being added.
5. Any monies paid to the City in lieu of park dedication shall
be placed in a special fund and used cn!y for the acquisition of
land for parks, playgrounds, trails, public open space; for the
develcpmen~ of such areas and sites; and for debt retirement in
connection with land previously acquired or developed for such
public purposes. Any monies specifically paid to the City for
trails shall be used only for .the acquisition of land far trails
and for the development of such land.
6. For purposes cf =his Ordinance, "fair market value of the
undeveloped land" is defined as the fair market value of the land
within such plat, replat, or subdivision as cf the date the plak,
replat, or subdivision is presented to the City Council for
approval cf the final plat, as determined by the 'City Assessor in
the same manner as he determines the fair market value of land
for tax purposes.
10.66
Cheryl Becker
11452 197th Avenue NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Cit')., planmng and Planning Comrmssion
13065 Orono Parkway Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Proposed Hillside Estates 8u' Addition
Case P00-18
November 30,2000
Dear City Planning and Planning Commission,
I am writing you to express my position and concerns in iegard to the Hillside Estates 8* Addition and the
proposed trails. I may not be able to attend the workshop on December 17. I share a common property
line on the north end of Hillside Crossings 4 and the new Hillside Estates 8t~ Addition. (colored lot on
enclosed map) This trail issue was up before you in February. 1996 and here I am again trying to defend
my position on the same matter.
Listed below are rite reasons I am opposed to the trail ranmng north of 196u' Avenue:
On February. 27,1996 the Planning Commission held a public hearing in regard to the rezoning
and preliminary plat for Hillside Crossings 4. Al that time the commission said. "No," to the
proposed trail that would have run across my back property line because they said they won't
approve trails across the back of existing homes.
On March 26,1996 the city counsel decided that a 10 or 20 foot "No Cut Buffer" was to be on the
north and east sides of Hillside Crossings'4. I am not sure, but a trail I believe needs more than a
20 foot width between properties.
My home is only 30 feet from my back p~:operty line therefore a trail would definitely violate my
pr/vacy and make my property and home easily accessible to burglar), and vanctalism.
I have mn a daycare business from my home at tiffs location for 13 years. My daycare children
would be ex'posed to strangers and people walking dogs, and would be tempted to follow them or
pet these dogs, which could be dangerous. I feet I would be forced to put up a fence, which is
monetarily not an option for me, and it is unattractive.
Putting the trail north of 196th and down the power line would mean the trail would have to cross a
wetland and fill or grading would have to be done. The northeast corner of the Hillside crossings 4
is also wet and low and grading in the no cut buffer would be necessary and then tree and brush
would have to come down.
The trail would have to pass through the "No Cut Buffer" area north of Hillside 4 therefore trees,
even small ones, would have to be cut. 6 months of the year there are no leaves on the branches
and the cutting of the brush for this trail would open and diminish the reasomng for the buffer for
our neighborhood.
If a woodchip trail is put in, the woodchip trails many times are paved within a year or two
because of vegetation growth and upkeep.
A paved trail would attract more traffic because then roller blading, bicycles and more strollers
would use the path.
10.
Since the proposed trail crosses 196t~ Ave. and 196~ Ave. has the sidewalks it is not necessary for
the trail to mn behind my emSUng home or the homes of the new lots. The sidewalk on 1966 Ave.
connects with the sidewalk system on Evans and comes out very close to where the proPOsed trail
would come out.
I do not want to see the public walking or kids runmng by nor hear the public talking, shouting,
kids screaming, and so forth while t ,rymg to enjoy a dinner on my deck.
11. I have also talked with Darryl Thompson, who is involved with this project, and he is not in favor
oft/us trail mnmng north of 196t~ either.
I have lived here since 1986 when I built the home. I have made many sacrifices already, including
monetary ones, in regard to the rezoning and cleanng of the property that joins trane. I cannot sit on
my deck without the som~ds of semi-trucks downshifting, the cars roaring by, I hear the loudspeakers
at Menards lumber yard, (which I can hear with my doors and windows shut). I can smell the gas from
the ,~aoco station, the bright lights from Menards and Amoco shine in, garbage blows onto my
property from Menards and the highway. My property value was decreased ~, $_3000 on an appraisal I
had done on April 15,1998, (see enclosed), because of the zoning of the Hillside Crossing 4.. Mature
trees are failing do~ even two feet in diameter, in the buffer area and are knocldng down large trees
on my property because of the clearing of the Hillside Crossings 4. I do not need to add to all this with
the trail running across the back and people laughing, talldng, kids running and screaming down the
trail.
My privacy and daycare business would be great/3' affected and in a detrimental way ff a trail runs
across the back of my property. My house is too close to the property line. Please put yourself imo
my position. I welcome anyone from the city planmng, the planning commission, the city council, or
the developers to come out and see for yourself.
Thank you for taking time to read tiffs lengthy request.
Sincerely, ) .
Cheryl B eck/e'r
763~1-3509
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 16,800 SF
HILLSIDE ESTATES 8TH
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 13,500 SF
HILLSIDE ESTATES 4TH
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 18,000 SF
HILLSIDE ESTATES 1ST
AVERAGE LOT SIZE 20,700 SF
HILLSIDE ESTATES 9TH
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
November 8. 2000
Page 3
be a reinforced poly material at $800 per rink, but he felt the material would likely
only last one Year and would need to be thrown away.
Mr. Hals asked if the Commission was interested in adding a second set o
boards at the Gary Street site. He explained that he also checked on s( ~e
lightweight (110 lbs. per panel) "soft" hockey boards which fit togethE puzzle
pieces and have rounded edges. The advantage of this material is it would
float, making the panels easier to retrieve when the ice begins to if they
were used on Lake Orono. The disadvantage is the cost, which .000 for an
Olympic size rink and approximately $15,000 for the smaller size which the
City typically has (60'xl 20').
Mr. Hals then stated that a second set of wood hockey b(
site would cost approximately $3,400 for the material an
for the Gary Street
be built by staff.
Commissioner Peterson asked if additional lighting
Hals stated he did not feel additional lighting woul.
currently six light poles at the site from the 1999 sE
established in 1999, one for recreation skating.
need to be added. Mr.
necessary, since there are
Two rinks were
Ms. Bergh stated that Area Recreation
hockey rink site for practices, and felt ther
willing to schedule a second
definitely a demand for one.
Phil Hals stated that he has two peopl~
are interested in doing the flooding.
Commissioner Sladek asked if hock could be set up on Lake Orono. phil Hals
stated that the problem with the is that it would be nearly impossible to
retrieve the boards off the lake end of the season. He explained that
since the boards freeze into they would have to wait till spring when the
ice thaws to get them out at that point, the boards would sink. He stated
that the soft boards wot ideal for use on the lake, since they would float.
Commissioner Dave Ar stated that he would check out the hockey boards
used on Lake see what type of material is used.
The Commission
the following consensus on these items:
· The Comr
· The
adde~
will discuss the soft hockey boards option next year.
recommended that a second set of hockey boards be
Gary Street site.
CON DANA ANDERSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE EXPENDITURE OF
UP TO $3,500 FOR THE COST OF MATERIALS FOR A SECOND SET OF HOCKEY BOARDS
TO BE PLACED AT THE GARY STREET ICE RINK SITE. COMMISSIONER DAVE
ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
10.B.1. Hillside 8th Addition Preliminary Plat
Steve Wensman explained that Phoenix Enterprises is requesting preliminah/plat
approval to subdivide 62.74 acres into 111 single family lots. The developer is
proposing a 3.64 acre park to be located adjacent to the power line corridor on
Auburn Street, across from the existing water tower and Hillside Estates 5~h
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 4
Addition Park. Mr. Wensman reviewed the changes which were made in the
plan since the Commission's last review in February 2000.
Commissioner Dave Anderson asked about the status of the outlots. Mr.
Wensman explained that Outlots B and C will be acquired for the trail, and a 30
foot wide trail corridor will be acquired as part of Outlot B (power line corridor),
north of 196~h Avenue. Commissioner Dave Anderson asked why the trail was only
30 feet and not the entire width of the corridor as originally discussed. Ms.
McPherson explained that there is no logical use for the extra width (120') and
the excess will be absorbed by the adjacent lots.
Discussion followed regarding the woodchip trail proposed behind the houses
from 197th to the power line corridor (Outlot B).
Commissioner Dana Anderson asked if the developer was being given credit
toward his park dedication for the power line corridor. Mr. Wensman stated that
he would not receive credit.
Commissioner Peterson stated that the play structure was shown farther away
from the street than on the earlier concept plan. Mr. Wensman explained that
the residents attending the last public meeting stated that they wanted the
playground structure located as far away from the power line as possible.
Mr. Dana Anderson asked if the amenities in Hillside 5th Park would be installed.
Ms. McPherson explained that the amenities proposed for this park are identical
to those proposed for Hillside 5th Park. She noted that City Council has made it
clear that they would not support any development in the Hillside 5th Park at this
time, and that if the Commission did not support the proposed Hillside 8th Park
concept, they would need to make a decision whether or not they wanted to
pursue the Hillside 5th Park issue.
Commissioner Dana Anderson asked why the sidewalk is looped and makes no
outside connection at the southwest corner near Dodge and 195m Avenue. Mr.
Wensman stated that there is no iogical connection point outside of the plat, and
if it were extended, the sidewalk would come out between two commercial sites
on Evans Street. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned that the
pond shown in the park area would become larger. Mr. Wensman explained
that the pond could get larger with development, but that since there was steep
slope, the pond would likely become deeper and not take up any more of the
park land.
COMMISSIONER REITSMA MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PROPOSED PARK FOR HILLSIDE 8TM
ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THAT LOT 1, BLOCK 5, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PARK.
2. THAT A PAVED TRAIL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE POWER LINE CORRIDOR AS FAR
AS 196TM LANE THAT HAS A MAXIMUM GRADE OF 8% AND SIDE SLOPES NO
GREATER THAN 3:1.
3. THAT SIDEWALKS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAT TO CONNECT THE PARK AND
TRAILS TO THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE WEST.
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
November 8, 2000
Page 5
4. THAT NO WETLANDS OR STORM PONDS BE ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE PARK
DEDICATION.
5. THAT IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND DEDICATED FOR PARK, TRAIL AND PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE PURPOSES INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FINISH GRADING, GROUND
COVER, CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS AND CLEARLY IDENTIFYING PARK AND TRAIL
BOUNDARIES WITH CITY APPROVED MARKERS.
6. THAT IN ADDITION TO THE LAND DEDICATED FOR PARK, THE DEVELOPER PAY IN
CASH THE REMAINDER OF THE REQUIRED PARK DEDICATION.
7. PARK BOUNDARY MARKERS BE INSTALLED, CLEARLY STATING PARK
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION.
COMMISSIONER DAVE ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
6-0.
10.C. 1..park Land Acquisition Prioritization
Ms. McPherson and Chair Kuester conducted an exercise fo prioritize possibl,
future park properties. The following properties were determined to be thc
priorities:
six
1. Bailey Point
2. Specht Property
3. Bloomdahl Property
4. Alvertta Malstrom Property
5. (Tie) Hoebelheinrich Property and Schulze Property
6. Greys Property
This list will be presented to the City Council for disct
and direction.
10.C.2...Review Park Fee~
Trail Reimbursement Policy
Ms. McPherson explained that after furth
policy, staff is proposing that the City
staff will provide a trail construction st
December meeting.
of the trail reimbursement
using the current method, but that
for the Commission's review at the
?,ark Facility Use Fee/Deposit
COMMISSIONER REI'
FEES FOR RESERVING PAl
ENCLOSED PARK SHI
OPEN PARK SHELT
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING
FOR 2001:
RESIDENT NON -RESIDENT
S4o.oo $80.00
$20.00 $40.00
COMMISSIOI'
6-0.
Discus followed regarding fees for schools using Woodland Trails Park.
C( er Dave Anderson stated that he did not feel that charging a fee to
local school was unreasonable, but felt that since the City already receives
DAVE ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
Park & Recrealion Commission Minutes
February 9, 2000
Page 4
9.C.2.
9.C.3.
9.B.1.
The Commissioners expressed their support for the project and agreed that fin
details could be worked out with staff.
COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT FOR THE
DESIGN PROPOSED BY JERRY PALMER FOR LIONS PARK. COMMISSIO!
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
tORIAL
WESTRUM
Trott Brook Farms Park
Steve Wensman explained that the city has agreed
dedication money for park development in the first
Steve reviewed the amenities and cost estimates
Wensman noted that the shelter could be
park shelters have been established.
$163,598 of park
of Trott Brook Farms.
~sed for the park. Mr.
when design standards for
Commissioner Reitsma stated that he
dimensions of the fields and
like more information regarding
COMMISSIONER WESTRUM
THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS
ANDERSON SECONDED TH
Reitsma opposed.
TO RECOMMEND PROCEEDING WITH BIDS FOR
BROOK FARMS PARK. COMMISSIONER DANA
~OTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1. Commissioner
Steve Wensman he will provide details for the improvements at the March
Park &Recreat Commission meeting.
Master Review
Plan - Hillside 8th Park
St*
Wensman reviewed a video of city parks located east of Highway 169 and
of County Road 12.
A. Hillside 5lb, Hillside 8th and Hillside 9th: (These items were considered jointly.)
Steve Wensman reviewed the concept plan for Hillside 5th Addition Park which
was previously approved by the Commission. The plan includes a play structure
and full basketball court.
Mr. Wensman explained that Riverside Development has prepared a 2.21-acre
concept park plan for Hillside Estates 8th that includes tennis courts, a basketball
court, a tot lot, and parking. He stated that these amenities are redundant with
those of Hillside 5th park. Staff believes that Hillside 8th is a better location for the
proposed amenities and suggests that Hillside 5th be used for a natural area with
a prairie restoration with paths and possibly a picnic shelter with tables. Mr.
Wensman noted that the two parks along with the power corridor and trails,
could function as one larger park complex.
Mr. Wensman stated that the developer has asked if the city is interested in
acquiring Outlots A, B and C. The Commissioners were in agreement to not
accept Outlot C, which contains a large retention pond.
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
February 9, 2000
Page 5
Commissioner Peterson expressed his concern that the developer's park proposal
for Hillside 8th is not at all what the Park & Recreation Commission previously
reque, sted. Commissioner Westrum asked if the Commission was giving up their
previous request by accepting this proposal. Mr. Wensman stated it was true that
this proposal is not what the Commission requested, but it is a compromise utilizing
the flat open area that now exists rather than a hilly wooded area.
Commissioner Kuester felt that connection of the two park areas by trails makes
some sense.
Discussion followed regarding the Commission's previous recommendation for a
park in Hillside 8th which included 5 - 6 acres with some usable flat area,
accessible from the street and not tucked in behind residents' backyards.
Commissioner Dave Anderson stated he did not support a park in the vicinity of
the power lines.
Commissioner Olson felt it was a good idea to have separate areas for smaller
children and older children to play.
Commissioner Reitsma asked for input from the Hillside residents in the audience.
Maria Brown, 19605 Wilson Street and Ann Johnson, 19609 Wilson Street, were in
agreement they liked the flow of the two separate park areas. They felt the play
structure should be located in the Hillside 5th Park. They were opposed to play
areas in the power line corridor and stated they would not allow their children to
play there.
The Commissioners and staff discussed the constraints of the park site which was
previously recommended for Hillside 8th.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of combining lots 36 and 37 with the
park area proposed by the developer for the Hillside 8th Park, to increase the size
of the park.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they wanted a five acre park as
originally requested. The Commissioners generally agreed they could accept the
park location proposed by the developer, it Lots 36 and 37 were added fo
increase the size of the park. They did not support having play areas located
under the power lines. The Commissioners agreed to support acquisition of
Outlots A and B, but that minimal credit would be given to the developer, since
the property was not usable for active play area.
B. Deerfield 4:
Steve Wensman reviewed the plans for Deerfield 4Ih Addition Park. Improv~9.~¢~*'~
include park boundary markers and park identification signs,~~and fence
along the property line at Dodge Street to preve~liders from crossing the
road, herbaceous plants around th~.e~j;~4~J'~re of the pond and shrubs along the
road, additional play?,~~~pper basketball court to
sand volleyball to a full court basketball.
E1
iver Date:
Police Department
Memorandum
Michele McPherson, Planning Director
Thomas D. Zerwas, Chief of Police '~ .....
Bruce West, Fire Chief f~ ~/1/ ,
January 9, 2001 ~J~fffV~ ~)/
Subject: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HILLSIDE
ESTATES EIGHTH ADDITON
It has been brought to our attention that residents who live on Dodge
Street, just south of the proposed Hillside Estates Eighth Addition, are
requesting that Dodge Street be a cul-de-sac. Their request would
create two (2) cul-de-sacs; one (1) at the northern edge of Hillside
First Addition on Dodge Street and one (1) at the southern edge of
Hillside Eighth Addition on Dodge Street. Both cul-de-sacs would
more than likely butt up against each other.
From a public safety perspective, this doesn't make sense. As we
indicated on Auburn Street several months ago, if it were a cul-de-sac,
response time would be increased if public safety officials were south
of 196th on Auburn and had to drive all the way around via Highway
169 or Evans Avenue for an emergency.
This same scenario would hold tree for Hillside Eighth in regards to
Dodge Street. We would recommend that the City, with input from
City Engineer Terry Maurer, consider the placement of traffic calming
barriers or use of other traffic engineering methods to deal with
neighborhood concerns.
This recommendation may not sit well with some individuals.
However, we must look out for the "public safety" of all of our
citizens. If you have any questions in regards to this memo, contact
the police or f~re chief.
TZ/kma
13065 0r0n0 Parkway · P.O. Box 723 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-2324 · Fax (612) 441-8937
January l5,2001
Elk River City Council Members
City Hall Offices
Elk River, Minnesota
Dear Council Members,
The purpose of this letter is to urge each of you to please vote NO to the proposed plat for
Hillside Estates Eighth Addition that is being developed by Phoenix Enterprises.
The residents of Dodge Street believe that there are a multitude of reasons why this plat should
not go forward as is currently proposed:
c~ The existing Dodge Street is inadequate in size to handle increased traffic flow
c~ The intersection of Evans Street and 193rd, while already dangerous, will be an
enormous traffic hazard, as well as a liability.
c~ The proposed location for the park is extremely poor. It is in the middle of wetlands
and under power lines that have not been proven safe to be used in this manner.
C~ There are 21 conditions on record with the Planning Commission regarding this plat.
We believe that number is excessive, and therefore not thoroughly thought out or well
planned.
Residents met with Daryl Thompson, the developer and our former City Council member.
Alternative plat drawings, plat changes and other possible solutions were discussed, with little
progress being made.
The residents of Dodge Street have met with both Mayor Stephanie Klinzing and City Council
member Louise Kuester. Both of them have stated to us that they will vote against the plat as it
stands today.
We, the existing Dodge Street residents, would like you to do the same.
At the January 16, 2001 City Council Meeting, please vote against the plat for Hillside Estates
Eighth Addition. Send this plan back to the developer to be re-drawn with the city and it's
residents' best interests in mind.
Thank you for your time and thoughts regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Bill & Audie Gutzwiller
19388 Dodge St. NW
Petition Supporting Rejection of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside
Estates Eighth Addition
We the undersigned people of existing. Hillside Estates Additions, citizens of Elk River, MN,
unanimously oppose the preliminary plat presented by Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. and approved at
the DeCember 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Signature
Print Name
Address
57- ~¢v/
Petition Supporting Rejection of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside
Estates Eighth Addition
We the undersigned people of existing Hillside Estates Additions, citizens of Elk River, MN,
unanimously oppose the preliminary plat presented by Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. and approved at
the December 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Sic mature Print Name Address
Petition Supporting Rejection of the Preliminary Plat for Hillside
Estates Eighth Addition
We the undersigned people of existing Hillside Estates Additions, citizens of Elk River, MN,
unanimously oppose the preliminary plat presented by Phoenix Enterprises, Inc. and approved at
the December 27, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Signature Print Name Address