Loading...
6.3. SR 03-12-2001City of River MEMORANDUM Item # 6.3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Cou~ncil Michele McPherso~, Director of Planning March 12, 2001 Reconsider Preliminary Plat of Hillside 8th Addition The developer has submitted a revised preliminary plat of Hillside 8th Addition for the Council's reconsideration. Attachments · February 13, 2001 Letterfrom Leo Offerman re: EMF · March 2, 2001 Letter from Cheryl Becker, 11452 197th Avenue · March 4, 2001 Letter from Anne Schroeder, 19500 Auburn Street · Revised Plat Dated February 23, 2001 · City Council Minutes of January 23, 2001 · Staff Report Dated January 16, 2001 The revisions to the plat are as follows: Reduction in the number of lots from 104 to 99. Shifting of Dodge Street to the east. Increase in the lot depths of the lots behind Menards from 150 feet to 174 feet thereby creating a larger, usable rear yard. Increase in average lot size from 16, 812 square feet to 17,532 square feet. No further review of the plat has occurred. Per the Council's direction, the neighbors were notified of this meeting date and received a copy of both the original and revised plats. Planning Commission Comments Also per the Council's direction, the Planning Commission reviewed the revisions at its February 27, 2001 meeting. The consensus of the Commission was that the revision was an improvement over the original proposal. Commissioner Pederson was interested in a sidewalk down Dodge Street. S:\PLANNING~vllCHMC\CCREPRTS\HILLSID8.DOC 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 · Fax (763) 441-7425 02/15/2001 10:14 FAX 612 241 1399 RIVERSIDE 002/003 CON'NEXUS ENERGY Memo Februal-y 13, 2001 Riverside Development Daryl Thompson From: Leo Ofrerman Reaardinu: EMF I know that the transmission lines have been brought up regarding the siting of the park area in your new development. I thought that the following might be of interest to you, Counterpoint: There is no conclusive evidence that power-line EMF harms health The Feb. :3 Counterpoint "Evidence suggests transmission lines indeed dangerous" misled readers by suggesting electric and magnetic fiek/s (EMF). specifically those from transmission lines, pose a health dsk EMF exists wherever electricity is present, whether near appliances or other household equipment, or near tran~mis,~Jon and distribution lines that transport electricity from power plants to hames and businesses, it is impossible to generate and use electrical energy without creating such fields: they are an inevitable consequence of our reliance on electricity. Alter more than 30 years of extensive mseamh on power lines and EMF, and a recent examination of that body of research by our count~/'s most prestigious govemment research organizations, them is no conclusive evidence that EMF exposure from power lines, even at high levels, causes adverse health effects. During the past five yams, more than 30 major epidemiological studies of power-frequency fields and cancer support this conciusJon. In June 1999, the National Research Council established a committee of scientists and engineers to review the activities conducted under the EMF-Research and Public Information Program. In its report, the council concluded that "the results of the EMF-RAPID program do not support the contention that the use of electricity poses a major unreco~,,nized public.health danger." The National Institutes ol Environmental Health Sciences in its June 1999 report states, '"The sdentffic evidence suggesting that EMF exposures pose any health dsk is weak." It further states, "Virtually all of the laboratory gvidence in animals and humans, and most of the mechani~c work done in cells, fails to support a causal relationship between exposure to EMF at environmental levels and changes in biological function or disease status." In January 2000, the Minnesota Department of Health completed an assessment of EMF health effects research. The department conducted this assessment because of public concems regarding the potential of EMF to cause cancer and other adverse health effects. The assessment included an evaluation of the peer-reviewed literature and the conclusions of the scientific committees convened by federal agencies and the U.S. Congress. The Heal/~ Department's assessment concluded that the current body of evidence does not show that 02/15/2001 THU 10:14 FAX 612 241 1399 RIVERSIDE ~003/003 exposure to these fields is a health hA7Ard. "Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evidence shows that exp<~ums to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer or any other adverse health effects,' the report says. -Heidi Benedict, Minneapolis. Environrnentei analyst at Xcel Energy, published in the Star Tdbune Sincerely, from the desk of ....... Leo Offerman Utility services Representative Connexus Energy, Power Max 14601 Ramsay Blvd Ramsay, MN 55503 (612)-323-2711 Fax: (812) 506-9541 e-mail le oo~aec-_~e_ rvic~_~.co m Cheryl Becker 11452 197th Avenue NW Elk River, Mn 55330 City Council, City Planning, Planning Co~mnission and Park Board Elk River City Hall 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Proposed Preliminary Plat Approval for Hillside Estates 8th Addition March 2,2001 Dear City Council, City Planning, Planning Commission and Park Board, I am unable to attend the March 12 Council meeting because of two prior commitments. I am writing again and some of this may be repetitive. I am making sure I am heard now that this is up before the Council again, and this issue is not clear. I share a common property line with the north end of the vacant commercial lot on Hillside Crossings (Menards, Harley, Amoco development) and the north side of Hillside Estates 8th Addition. (My property is the colored red lot on enclosed map). My concerns are as follows: Trail proposals on Plat: I am opposed to having anything written in the plat in regard to a trail or chip trail to run north of 196th now or in the future. I am opposed to having the "No Cut Buffer" that is on the plat for Hillside Crossings Four on the north end of the vacant lot to be included or added into this plat for Hillside Estates 8th Addition. The Park Board and City Planning mentioned adding this in at the last council meeting on Hillside Estates 8~ Addition plat approval for the future chip trail that would mn north of 196th, because the future chip trail would have to cross this narrow "no cut buffer" to end at the comer of 197 Ave. and Evans. This same trail was denied and removed by the City Council on March 26,1996 or April 11,1996 in the approval of the Hillside Crossings Two or Four as the map now states, for the Menards development. (Listen to the video) Why do I have to defend this exact same trail problem again? The trail would have mn across the back of my property and a 20- foot ''NO CUT BUFFER"(yellow line on map) was decided on to buffer my home and the neighborhood from these commercial businesses. If a trail would ever go through this NO CUT BUFFER, it would have to be graded because Iow and trees cut to make the trail and this would defeat the original reasoning behind this buffer. 3. My home is only 30 feet from this common property line and a trail so close to my home would be a problem for me with vandalism, privacy, and safety for my family and daycare business and me. I urge you all to come out and see. 4. The paved trail comes out to 196th^ye, and 196th Ave. has the sidewalk that joins to the sidewalk system on Evans, which is very close to where the chip trail would come out. There is no reason to fun a chip trail behind my home and the few future homes in the development. 5. I am the only resident and business this trail would affect in a detrimental way at this time. In regard to the development as a whole: 1. I still do not agree with a NO CUT BUFFER to be included in the lots regardless the size of the lot. This buffer behind Menards is now narrow because of the mistake and over cutting when cleating for Menards. No one enforces the property owners from cutting on their lots should they want to. 2. The traffic problem still exists and was a major concern with the Planning Commission and the City Council with this plat approval. There is a safety issue with the residents and pedestrians on Dodge and with all the traffic being funneled out to the intersection on Evans and 193fa. 3. I disagree with the clearing and leveling of these beautiful hardwoods in the Elk river City limits. They are the only ones really let~. The Brentwood development is rolling and has the hardwoods and the lots there are made larger and the trees saved. Why can't this development be set up something like Brentwood. People would be willing to pay more for bigger lots and trees. It is a shame to see Elk River allowing the clear cutting of century old trees and hardwoods for small lots and hundreds of homes. Overall, the major concerns and problems from the City Council, Planning Commission, and the citizens that live around this proposed development still exist and the developer didn't change anything nor address these with the new plat. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Cheryl Becker 763-441-3509 LOCATION~~ PAR~ LOCATION MAP ~06~Orono~'~,~.P.O. Box~90 CASE: P 00-18 Elk River. ~[N March 4, 2001 The Mayor The City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, Minnesota Dear Mayor and City Council, I am writing to express my upset and dismay at the prospect of a park behind Auburn Street. I received a letter from the City of Elk River (which was greatly appreciated) detailing the new plat for Hillside 8th Addition. I called and spoke to Michele McPherson. Ms. McPherson carefully and very professionally broke the ugly news that a park is planned in that area. When we purchased our home no mention was ever made of the park, although we carefully asked about future development plans. We were assured that the presence of power lines precluded any development. This area is wooded, we have a deer feeder in our back yard. This type of area is rare and should be preserved. It does not have useful development potential. The poweflines make it unsuitable for a children's play area. It seems the choice of placement was a "easy out" for the developer, not the best choice for children. The plans for this park, even though tentative, are not neighborhood friendly. After the choice of an unsuitable site, the problem is made even worse. Ms. McPherson explained there is no mandated buffer between the park and the backyards. This is a neighborhood park that the neighborhood does not want. I respectfully request that you honor the special quality of life that made us choose Elk River for a home and require the developer to offer a location which is a good choice for young children and a good choice for residents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Schroeder 19500 Auburn St. NW Elk River City Council Minutes January 22, 2001 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4.1. Request by Phoenix Enterprises for Preliminary Plat Approval ('Hillside Estates 8th Addition~, Public Hearin.q - Case No. P 00-18 - Continued from 1/16/01 Meetin.q Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that, per Council direction, staff prepared a resolution denying the preliminary plat for P 00-18, Hillside Estates 8th Addition. Councilmember Dietz stated that he would not vote for this resolution based on the following reasons: · The complete area (Hillside 1-7, 9, Coborn's, and Menards) used to be forested with trees so the argument that trees should not be cleared from the Hillside 8r~ Addition is not valid. · The property has always been zoned R le, which requires lot sizes to be a minimum of 12,000 square feet and the Hillside Plat has lot sizes averaging 17,000 square feet. · The reason the park location was selected near powerlines was because it was centrally located for the whole Hillside Development and it was also the flattest and most open location in the Hillside Estates 8th Addition. · Traffic on 193~d Avenue and Evans Avenue is not a problem now but if it were to be an issue in the future then the city could look at installing a traffic signal. Councilmember Dietz stated that the only part of the plat he would like to see changed is the removal of the two lots located in a wetland area. Councilmember Dietz stated that this plat meets all regulations set forth in the Rle zoning district and should be passed accordingly. COUNClLMEMBER MOTIN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01- 05 DENYING PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST P 00-18, HILLSIDE ESTATES 8TM ADDITION, AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT THEREFOR. MAYOR KLINZING SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Motin stated his concern that the 50' no cut buffer zone would be part of the lots located on the west end of the plat and that the lot area of these lots should not be included as part of this buffer zone. Councilmember Motin further stated that the retaining walls were overly high, and the parkland should be in a location away from powerlines. Councilmember Kuester commented on the proximity of the park to the powerlines and asked if this had been an issue or concern in the past when other parks or trails were sited. Councilmember Tveite expressed concerns regarding the 50 foot no cut zone as being a part of the lots located on the west end of the development and with traffic safety on 193rd and Evans. Mayor Klinzing stated that the density of this development was too high, as it would cause traffic issues at 193rd and Evans, and 193rd and Dodge. Mayor City Council Minutes Page 3 January 22, 2001 Klinzing stated that the city should study traffic issues that would be created by new developments. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2. COUNCILMEMBERS DIETZ AND KUESTER OPPOSED. Councilmember Kuester stated that she opposed the motion as she did not agree with all the findings in the resolution. 4.2. Authorize Evans and 193rd Traffic Study City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that the city would like to complete a traffic count study on Evans Avenue and 193r~ Avenue. Mr. Maurer indicated that the study would cost approximately $5,000. COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A TRAFFIC STUDY F(~ AVENUE AND 193RD AVENUE. COUNClLMEMBER TVEITE SECONDED THI MOTION CARRIED 5-0. THE 4.3. Authorize Park Land Ne.qotiation with Grace Assembl, Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that staff ~uld like authorization from the Council to begin negotiations for the purchase oproximately 10 acres of land from the Grace Assembly of God McPherson stated that the area is near an urban residential location w there is little parkland and that there may be future opportunities to more land in the area. City Engineer Terry Maurer informed council thc plans to loop the water system between The need to acquire necessary easements negotiations. Municipal Utilities have future Ridge and County Road 13. be brought up during these COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN MOVED TO WITH GRACE ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF PARKLAND AT $14,500 PER ACRJ MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED ,~ STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF UP TO 10 ACRES SECONDED THE 5. Open Mike No one appeared for o mike. 6.1. Consider Rec for Palice Officer Position Police Chief Tom River Police months to co~ of police stated that two police officers might be leaving the Elk ~s stated that the hiring process takes three to four and he would like authorization to advertise for the position Council~ Dietz questioned if the police department had an established eligibi list. Chief Zerwas stated that the market for police officers is very corn and his department does not have a current eligibility list because it's hard to keep a list of good qualified applicants for more than a few months.