6.1. SR 12-15-2003POver
MEMORANDUM
Item #
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Co~
Michele McPherso~f_,~)irector of Planning
December 15, 2003
Consider Comprehensive Plan - Comprehensive Plan
Implementation
Request
At the November 17, 2003 City Council meeting, the Council tabled action on the
Comprehensive Plan and directed staff to prepare an implementation plan for instituting the
proposed land use change from Agricultural to Rural Residential for lands north of County
Road 33.
Attachments
Traffic Analysis Zones - 2003 Transportation Plan
· Lot Inventory- December 8, 2003
· Greenway Map Excerpt North of County Road 33
Large Development Parcels North of County Road 33
· Table- Development Potential North of County Road 33
· Proposed Phasing Plan Suggested by Mayor Klinzing
· November 17, 2003 Memo to the City Council with Attachments
· November 17, 2003 City Council Minutes
Process
In order to provide a comprehensive and detailed recommendation to the City Council, staff
called a special joint meeting of the Planning and Park and Recreation Commissions for
Tuesday, December 9, 2003.
The Commissions received information about land characteristics north of County Road 33,
the development potential of parcels north of County Road 33 under both current and
Memo to Mayor and City Council
December 15, 2003
Page 2
proposed requirements, and various implementation options including amendments to the
land use plan text, and development moratoriums. The City Attorney, Peter Beck, was in
attendance to answer questions regarding the legality of any process or recommendation to
the Council.
Land Characteristics North of County Road 33
The land area north of County Road 33 totals 9,218 acres. Land north of County Road 33
can be essentially divided into three portions. The center portion contains the gravel mining
and landfill areas. This is north of County Road 33 to the north corporate boundary and
west of Highway 169 and east of the abandoned railroad grade. This area on the future land
use map has been identified as both gravel mining and landfill, spedfic uses which may be
considered as "reserve areas".
Lands west of the railroad grade and east of Highway 169 are characterized by existing
subdivisions platted under county jurisdiction prior to the consolidation, four per 40 plats
and cluster plats (Ridges of Rice Lake and Rolling Hills). As can be observed on the
greenway map excerpt, there are substantial areas of wetlands, steep slopes, and forests north
of 33. The total vacant developable land in these two areas equals 4,063 acres. It is
important to note these characteristics in order to understand if a phased plan is appropriate
for the area in question.
The development potential of lands north of 33 was also evaluated. Staff prepared an
analysis of lot creation potential for most parcels 60 acres or greater in area. The possible
number of lots under the current or proposed rules was calculated without regard to
wetlands, right-of-way or other site constraints unique to each particular parcel. That
information is attached as the table titled "Development Potential North of County Road
33".
Implementation Components and Potential Workplan
In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, there are multiple components that need to
be considered, many of which may require policy changes. Implementation of the Plan will
require changes to the City's offidal controls; land use and zoning maps, zoning and
subdivision codes. The Commissions discussed the following components as needing
evaluation during the implementation phase:
A. Natural resources inventory
B. Subdivision changes to implement the greenway initiative based on the natural
resources inventory.
C. Identification of transportation improvements (Highway 169 and local streets in the
eastern area as primary areas of concern)
D. Master sewer plant plan, including ultimate flows and collection system capacity
E. Master park plan
F. Storm water management plan
G. Zoning Map changes
H. Analysis of zoning districts within the Old Town land use district
S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\12 15 03 memo implementation.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
December 15, 2003
Page 3
Jo
Land use plan amendment for the Highway 169/County 33 Interchange area as a
result of the master sewer plant plan
Focus area studies of potential redevelopment areas (Ron's Foods, downtown north
of Highway 10, northwest corner of Highway 10 and Proctor as examples)
Amend the Capital Improvements Plan to be financially prepared for the funding of
necessary improvements
Following is a preliminary workplan illustrating how the above tasks would be scheduled
over the next two years:
~April May June july August~~~~~ September October November December
NRI Subdivisio
starts ~ n changes ·
for Green-
ways
Sewer Flows and Land
Plan capacity Use ·
studied Analysis
~ 169/33
Zoning
Map
Changes
Transporta
fion Study
Park
Plan
Old
Town
Focus
Area
Study
Transpo
rtafion
Study
Capital
Imp
Plan
Implementation Options
The Commission then reviewed potential options for implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan:
1. Amending the text of the Land Use Plan
A. Delay the land use change from Agricultural to Rural Residential until a date certain
(January 1, 2006 was a suggested date); or
B. Phase in the same land use change in a tiered manner, such as suggested by Mayor
Klinzing and illustrated on the attachment.
S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\12 15 03 memo implementation.doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council
December 15, 2003
Page 4
This option would allow continued development at either 10-acre minimums or under the
cluster rules should a property owner desire to move forward with some form of
development. Of the two options presented, treating all lands north of County Road 33
consistently appeared to be the best option given the fact that the parcels available for
development are similar in topographic and biologic characteristics and City services (police
and fire) have already been "stretched" by the approval of the cluster developments Ridges
of Rice Lake and Rolling Hills.
2. Ufflize a Development Moratorium
A. City-wide; or
B. For lands north of CountyRoad 33 only.
A development moratorium would prohibit development of any sort except those activities
that were specifically exempted from the moratorium. A moratorium would allow the above
planning activities to occur without competition for time by land use applications. In
addition, some land use applications may be in conflict with the studies that would occur
during the moratorium.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Commissions thoroughly reviewed and discussed the various options as noted above
that the Council could consider in order to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Of key
importance is to protect the process while the City is evaluating ways to best implement the
Plan to achieve the long-term vision expressed in the Plan. Both Commissions voted
unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan as presented
and immediately implement a development moratorium on the creation of new lots in all
zoning districts Citywide with the following exceptions:
A. Building permits for new construction or expansion of existing buildings on existing lots
would be allowed in all zoning districts.
B. Existing applications that have been accepted would be allowed to nm their course.
C. Additional phases or further subdivision of lots within development areas that have been
platted and have appropriate zoning, whether Commercial, Industrial, Business Park, or
Planned Unit Development, would be allowed (for example, additional phases of Elk
River Station or the subdivision to create lots in Elk Path Business Center).
D. Expansions of existing churches, schools, and government buildings that would require
conditional use permits.
The initial moratorium period by statute will be for 12 months, however, the Commissions
believe that the moratorium could ultimately last up to 2 ~,5 years. They suggested that the
moratorium language be drafted such that the process be evaluated at six month intervals to
determine if additional parcels can be exempted from the moratorium process, if
appropriate.
S:~PLANNING\Comp Plan\12 15 03 memo implementation.doc
1232 /~
? /
1238
!1223
1224
1229
1271 ~' ;/¢741
1228 gg
....... '1227
1268
1198
12t3
,
I
1192 ~ 1193
175~Ave
1189
I 0.5 0 ~ 2
Item #
6.1.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Cou~ncil
Michele McPherso ,~, Director of Planning
November 17, 2003
Request by the City of Elk River to Review and Adopt Updated
Comprehensive Plan - Public Hearing
Attachments
August 25, 2003 Letter from Patrick and Debbie Holzem
· August 29, 2003 e-mail from Geraldine Graham
· August 28, 2003 e-mail from Ijaz Osman
· August 25, 2003 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting Minutes
· Language Changes Submitted by Cliff Lundberg, Task Force Member
Overview
Rusty Fifield, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., will be in attendance to present the
Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. Rusty will review the process, the public meetings
that were conducted, the vision/mission statement, and the components of the Plan.
Issues to Consider
As the Council considers the public testimony, it should consider the following issues that
they may or may not want amended prior to final adoption:
Expansion of the Urban Service District - As has been discussed at the Comprehensive
Plan Task Force level on numerous occasions, the recommendation in the plan is to not
extend the Urban Service District until a master sewer plant plan can be completed.
This master plan would more closely evaluate current sewage flows, identify future flows,
determine the physical and financial feasibility of expansion at the existing site, and also
consider physical and financial feasibility of the expansion of the district into areas
currendy unserviced. Once these items have been identified, the City can then re-
evaluate the land use plan to more specifically identify land uses or additional properties
for inclusion into the Urban Service District. Two areas in question, with a potential
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/Comprehensive Plan
November 17, 2003
Page 2
third, include the gravel mining district, the rural residential area east of the current
district, and property currently under Cargill ownership.
Areas for High Density, Residential - The proposed plan identifies the area in the vicinity
of 175th Avenue and Twin Lakes Road as being high density residential. This would
allow, with the appropriate zoning, construction of multi-family (apartment) units. This
is the only opportunity the City has for the identification of lands potentially suitable for
this type of housing style. Short of redeveloping areas within the core village area, there
are no opportunities to provide for multi-family housing.
Additional Commercial Land - The issue has been raised as to the need for additional
commercial development opportunities. As the Commission is aware, there is an
opportunity along East Highway 10 to designate additional commercial land, however,
given the current market and staff conversations with commerdal developers, it is
unlikely that commercial developers will want to look elsewhere other than the Highway
169/101 corridor. Also, the Ramsey Town Center may adversely affect commercial sites
along the East Highway 10 corridor in Elk River.
'Planning Commission Action
At the Planning Commission meeting, there were several residents and task force members
in the audience, however, only two people spoke to the issue. Mr. Bayless, resident on 213~
Avenue spoke regarding the preservation of the 10-acre lot minimum north of County Road
33. He felt that this helped preserve a unique identity for Elk River and would help reduce
population growth. Mr. Lundberg, representing the River's Edge Business Association and a
member of the Heritage Preservation Commission, spoke regarding specific language
changes that should be incorporated into the Old Town description and initiative. His
suggested changes are attached.
The Commission's discussion centered around transportation as a key element to making the
plan work, the need for additional commercial land uses along Highway 169, and the
expansion of the Urban Service District. The Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council adopt the plan as presented with Mr. Lundberg's
suggestions incorporated into the plan. They did, however, want to see redevelopment as an
option in the Old Town District.
Recommendation
Once the public heating has been closed, staff recommends that the City Council take one
of the following actions regarding the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Approve the Plan as presented.
2. Approve the Plan with amendments to be included prior to publication and distribution.
3. Table the Plan until December in order to review the amendments prior to publication
and distribution.
S:\PLANNING\Comp Plan\ll 17 cc memo.doc
August 25, 2003
Elk River Planning Commission
Dear Elk River Planning Commission Members,
We continue to be in the position of wanting to have sewer and water services provided
to our land. We are adjacent to the Urban Service District and want to be included in this
district in order to have it developed efficiently.
To not consider this land for such a district and wait and serve other properties such as
Cargill and the gravel pits is unfair. There are too many questions as to the end use and
timing of these properties. Cargill is restricted by a conservation easement and the gravel
pits south of County Road 33 should be active for at least another 5 years.
The Urban Service District should be based on where it is logical to extend services.
Although it may be 2-5 years, it is logical to extend services to our property. City
services can come from several directions depending upon the development of
neighboring property. Services may also be provided under the road right of way of
County Road 40 that would allow the City of Elk River to "control the extension of sewer
and water", rather than be held captive by certain property owners.
It seems there have been other properties that have been located within the Urban Service
District that have not developed for some time. We are asking the City Council to
designate our land for the Urban Service District with the understanding that it will not
have urban services unless it can be paid for by development.
R/~e~pectfully,
Pat & Debbie Holzem
19049 Davis Street
Elk River MN 55330
Page 1 or'2
Mcpherson, Michele
From: Rusty [rusty@hkgi.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:56 AM
To: 'gandbgraham@usfamily.net'
Cc: 'Mcpherson, Michele'
Subject: RE: Comment on Draft Elk River Comprehensive Plan
Thank you your comments, and in general, taking the time to consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
I will look into the issues that you have raised. Your comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
as part of the packet with the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
Do not hesitate to contact me with other questions or comments about the Plan.
Rusty Fifield
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
..... Original Message .....
From: gandbgraham@usfamily.net [mailto:gandbgraham@usfamily.net]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:24 AM
To: Rusty
Cc: mmcpherson@ci.elk-river.mn.us
Subject: Comment on Draft Elk River Comprehensive Plan
Thanks for the chance to have this type of input on the draft Comprehensive Plan -- I tried to
participate in person, but found I could make it to only one of the sessions.
I have a serious concern about how the beautifully-stated Vision Statement actually translates to
reality when I view the proposed Land Use map. I believe the Vision Statement really reflects the
ideals that most Elk River residents have, at least the people that I know and my neighbors.
There seems to be a dis-connect between the Vision and your plan for our neighborhood, however.
The neighborhood is in East Elk River, bounded by 175th Avenue on the North and Tyler Street on the
West. Currently, the neighborhood is rural residential. Residents own horses and other livestock and
many of the homes have large outbuildings. This neighborhood acts as a buffer to a large
natural wetland running along the southern edge -- about the only place that wildlife have left after so
much major clearing and urban/suburban development to the north of our neighborhood. Our
neighborhood also serves as a gateway or "transitional" area to the new urban/suburban
neighborhoods, as one comes off Hwy 10 into the residential area. All of these factors in the current
land use pattern of our neighborhood are a perfect mesh with the Vision Statement, which says:
Maintain a distinct identity-natural resources of the community are essential ingredient, ER seeks to
grow in a manner that preserves the qualities of its small town heritage. Aisc: Preserve and maintain
the environment-rural undeveloped areas are part of the ER environment.
If I am reading the proposed Land Use map correctly, our area is shown for the future as dark brown,
which would be slated for high density residential development -- apartments and townhouses. That
type of development will be incompatible with the current residents' land use, and is completely
opposed to the themes of the Vision mentioned above. In addition, high density residential
development for this neighborhood, which will bring hundreds of new households to a concentrated
area, will contribute to the serious overcrowding situation in the Elk River schools, which can't keep
pace with the lightening-speed population grow of this community. That will undermine another the
Vision statement's points: A quality educaiton system for ER.
I urge the city decision makers and City Council to change the plans for our neighborhood, keeping our
area designated as rural residential, which fits more closely with the Elk River Vision Statement.
Thank you. Feel free to contact me for further discussion.
Geraldine Graham
17451 Tyler Street N.W.
Elk River, MN 55330
8/29/2003
Comp plan comments Page ! of 1
Mcpherson, Michele
From: Rusty [rusty@hkgi.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:48 AM
To: 'ljaz'
Cc: 'Mcpherson, Michele'
Subject: RE: Comp plan comments
Thank you very much for your comments and concerns.
I will look into your issue as I prepare the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan.
Your comments will be provided to the Planning Commission as part of the packet with the Plan.
Rusty Fifield
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
..... Original Message .....
From: Ijaz [mailto:ijaz@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:56 AN
To: Rusty
Subject: Comp plan comments
I'm a resident on 175th. I'm currently zoned in Urban Residential, and the comp plan vision sees
my land and other owner's land south of 175th as High Density housing.
My concern is that if the plan is adopted, the city will rezone our land prematurely without any
developers approaching the owners. This will force us to make decisions and plans without
considering the effects it has on our lifestyle and finances. However, I'm not sure that such a
thin9 would happen and it could be conjecture.
The City and Planning Commission have been good in listening to the residents on 175th, and I
want to make sure we all understand what exactly are the impacts to all of us. I just want to be
heard in case they decide to do this. How can we get this information?
Thank you
Sincerely
Ijaz Osman
8/28/2003
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD AT LIONS PARK CENTER
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
Members Present:
Staff Present:
Cha~' Todx, Comrmssioners Thompson, Lieser, Morro and Wilson
Executive D/rector Cad~erme Mehelich, Economic Development Assistant
Heid/Hall, Ci .t-y Admmmsrrator Par IQlaers, Dtrecror of-Planning M/chele
McPherson, Senior Planner Scott Harlicker, and City, Engineer Ter~
~/[aurer
Call Meer2nK To Order
Pursuan.r to due call and nodce r2aereof, the meeting of the Elk River Housing and
Redevelopment AudaoriK~ was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chas: Toth.
Consider August 25, 2005 HR_& AKenda
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 25, 2003,
I-IRA AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER WILSON SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Consider Consent A?nda
COMMISSIONER MOTIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
AS FOLLOWS:
3.1. July 28, 2003 HRA MINUTES
3.2. CHECK REGISTER
3.3. REVENUE/EXPENDITURE SHEET
3.4. BALANCE SHEET
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
Open N[ike
There was no one present for Open M/ke.
Comprehensive P!an Update
Chair Toda stated that no H_R_~k representatives on the Comprehensive Plan Update Task
Force attended the last Task Force meeting, wi=ch was a public open house on August 21,
2003. Ch:ur Torh asked Director of' Planning Michele McPherson to provide an update on
the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Ms. McPherson provided a summary, of recent Task Force acttViries.
H_I~i Iv[mutes Page 2
August 25, 2003
6.2.
7.
Comrmssioner Motto asked if the EI(i would like to make a recommendation requesting
the priority for the expansion o£ r_he Urban Service Dismct. He stated he would Like prior/q~
Kven to commercial and mdusrr/al development.
There was much discussion regarding ~vhat types of development would be ~Ven priority if
the Urban Service Dismct is expanded.
COMMISSIONER MOTIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY
COUNCIL THAT A STATEMENT BE ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSD~E
PLAN INDICATING THAT, IF THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT IS
EXPANDED 32'4D WATER/SEWER CAPACITY IS LIMITED, THEN
PRIORITY BE GiVEN TO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES
OVER RESIDENTL~L DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. ConUmssioner Lieser
opposed.
Housing & Redevelopment Budget for Year 2004
Director of Economic Development Catherine Mehelich summarized the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority Budget for Year 2004. Ms. Mehelich noted that the EDA, at its
August meeting, requested r_hat the Personal Service costs (salaries and benefits) be more
evenly divided, in terms of staff m'ne being spent on current projects. In 2003, Personal
Services were divided between the EDA and H.~_ respectively at 70/30. Ms. Mehelich
recommended that for budget year 2004, the Personal Service costs be divided between the
EDA and H_R~ at 60/40. Ms. Mehel.ich reported that ~he proposed budget expenditures of
$205,300 assumes that ~2~e proposed Downtown Revitalization Project proceeds and
includes costs for relocation consulting services. Ms. Mehekich stated that the projected
2004 revenues are $209,450.
Consider Year 2004 Budget
COMMISSIONER WILSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR YEAR 2004 AS
PRESENTED.' COMMISSIONER MOTIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Consider Resolut/on Regarding Ht~{ Levy
COMMISSIONER MOTIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 03- 02,
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE TAX LEVY FOR THE ELK RIVER
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR COLLECTION IN 2004.
COMMISSIONER WILSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
Downtown Revitalizadon Project Update
Communications Update
Economic Developmenr Assistant ~Ieicii Hall provided an update on the Downtown
Revital/zarson Project corm:nunications act/vities. Ms. Hall reported on the following
activities:
preservation through the greenway system.
· Using density bonuses as an incentive for additional land
A developer can offset the loss of dedicated land with the
build additional housing units. The City's Open Space
Plat regulations provide a model. The City can also grant
to add additional lots if certain criteria are met.
units or smaller minimum lots might also be optiol
ability
.ddidonal
sewered
subdivisions and zoning districts. This a
criteria for obtaining the bonus and the
density.
· The greenway initiative promotes a
dedication regulations, allowing thc
specific
maxi_mum changes in
of the overall park
to discuss the role of park
dedication, and to develop plan ensure hr~plementation of overall
park open space needs.
3 6 Building the Comprehensive Plan for Elk River
Using the P/an
· Shifting park resources to greenways will reduce funds for
other elements park system. In new subdivisions, special
assessments housing improvement areas could be used to acquire
and neighborhood parks.
· greenways will compete with other services and facilities for
pr taxes. Some comanunides have sought voter approval to issue
to finance park and open space initiatives.
Old Town
The Old Town is an essential part of Elk River's heritage and identity. The
Old Town land use seeks to preserve and enhance the commercial districts
and residential neighborhoods in this area. Designating a land use is only the
first step in this effort. Subsequent actions must work to achieve community
objectives for this area.
Focus future planning on a broader area.
Current planning focuses on the downtown/central business district portion
of Old Town. The next phase of planning should include the entire Old
Town area. This planning initiative would provide a means of identifying
needs for preservation, renovation, revitalization, redevelopment and public
improvement.
Build connections.
A key to the revitalization Old Town is to preset'ye its idendtv ~vhile creating connections
within the area
and to other parts of the community. Some potential connections include:
· Streetscape improvements along Main, Proctor and Jackson to create a
sense of identity, and improve the appearance of the area.
· A well defined system of sidewalks and trails to encourage pedestrian
and other non-vehicular movement within the area. These connections
should link downtown, the school campus, Lion's Park, the River,
Handke School and the Library.
· Connections through parks, other public open space, trails, and
orientation of private development to create visual and physical
connections between Old Town and the Mississippi River.
targeted in this category are over 8 and up to 20 units per acre.
High Density uses are located in places with compatible adjacent land uses and
where the local street system will accommodate the traffic. Potential settings
adjacent to commercial districts, employment centers, civic centers, park facilitie:
transit facilities and p~4ncipal roadway corndors. When planned adjacent to lo
density neighborhoods, high density housing can be designed to transition its
most intense use (3 or 4 story apartments) to a lower density (small lot family
or attached townhomes) as it approaches lo~ver density
High Density, Residential uses may also be located in apt locations
within the MLxed Use and Old Town categories.
Mixed Use
The MLxed Use land use category serves as a location that a mixture of
housing, jobs and retail service uses within close each other. This land
use creates the pOtential for people to work close to ohs and offers an
environment where one can live with less reliance the car. This area provides
another setting for high density residential land : in Elk River.
Mixed Used is a new land use category. It not appear in the 1995 plan. It is a
reflection of current market trends that se, integrate residential and
nonresidential development in a comrn setting close to transit services.
The Plan contains a single location Use. The property is bounded by
Coun .ty Road 12, County Road l! d Twin Lakes Road.
MLxed use is frequendy propo the redevelopment of commercial areas.
"Vertical" mixed use puts and housing uses into a single building. This form
An urban residential
density of 6 to 8 units pt
An urban residential ;rn at a
density of 2 to 3 un, acre.
A high ~attern at
a density of 1', 20 units per acre.
5 9 Buildi, Future - A Comprehensive Plan for Elk River
Land
typically puts residential uses over street level retail or office uses. The
Use designation may include a more horizontal arrangement of uses with
pedestrian connections to foster a pedestrian friendly environment.
Old Town
The Old Town land use category reflects the unique land use mLxture in and around
the Downtown. This area is based on the Central Business District area in the 1995
plan and is expanded to include areas around the Downtown with related
development issues. These areas include:
· Residential areas between Jackson and Highway 169.
· MLxture of uses bet~veen the school campus and Downtown.
· Original Elk River residential neighborhoods surrounding Downtown
~Pl.., C'
...................... ~ .... ~,. A variety of uses fit into the Old Town des adon:
community-scale retail, professional services, public/civic uses, park, offices,
dining and entertainment, banking, lodging, and housing. Uses need to be
compatible with the character and scale of the Downtown area.
Old Town is the home for a wide range of housing. The Plan seeks to protect and
promote the maintenance of the single-family neighborhoods. These neighborhoods
are an important part of Elk River's heritage and identity and offer affordable
housing options. The majority of the e,'dsting high density housing is located in the
Old Town area.
The Old Town designation reflects the need and opportunity, for prese~wation,
rehabilitation,revitalization,
renovation and redevelopment. Rcdc'ccl<3pmcnt which should be oriented to housing,
commercial uses and public spaces that support the existing character of the area.
The Old Toxvn area contains a variety of civic features. The School campus
forms the north edge of this area. Lion's Park Center, Elk River Library and
Handke School are all important civic elements of this area. These facilities
provide character and attract people into this area. These facilities build
connections with the community and provide market opportunity for local
businesses.
Parks and natural features play an essential role in the plan for Old Town. This
area provides the greatest opportunity for hnproved access and connection with
the Mississippi River. Lake Orono creates the ~vestern boundary for this area.
Linkages from Old To~vn into the western neighborhoods and civic institutions
of western Elk River are important.
Community Commercial
The Community Commercial land use focuses on community retail develo,
These uses are often service and convenience oriented. Development is
Vertical mixed use (housin~l over
retail and office)
A master p/an the integrates a mix
of land uses.
A pedestrian friendly environment is
a characteristic of the Old Town
designation.
An historic "mainstreet" character
should be preserved in downtown.
5 l0 Building the Future - A Corn for Elk River
Land Use
smaller in size and oriented more to~vards Examples of
Community Commercial uses include hardware store, and coffee shop
often arranged in a "strip mall" Developments under the community
commercial designation tend to con of less than 100,000 square feet of retail
and professional services, developing under the Highway Business
designation are often in exces,' square feet.
The current plan makes use of the Cormnunity Commercial designation.
These areas appear as s pockets of retail development along the highway
corridors. The the Highway Business and Old Town land uses replace
some ex, istmg Commercial areas. In the land use plan, the Community
Commercial focuses on neighborhood oriented retail areas with no direct
connection high~vay corridors.
The Plan for the creation of neighborhood commercial "nodes". These nodes are
small of corm~2ercial uses integrated with residential neighborhoods. Specific
loc: for these areas of Community Commercial do not appear on the Land
U~e Map. The location of these uses will be determined through the development
Ci%, Council ~mtes
November 17, 2003
6.1. Request by CitT~ or' Elk P,2ver to Reviexv Updated Comprehensive Plan
Public Hearing
Page 4
Director of PLanning Nhchele McPherson submitted tl~e staff report. Ms. McPherson
introduced Rusty, Fifield, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
Nk. Fifield presented the draft Comprehensive Plan (Plan) to the Council. He thanked the
Task Force members and all the boards and commissions for their input on the Plan. He
discussed some of the issues that the city should consider in adopting the Plan such as sewer
capacity, areas of high density residential, and additional commercial land.
Mayor I<[linzing opened the public hearing.
Counci. hnember Ko, ester stated that she received a phone call from Doug H_ipsag, a resident
who [ives north o~' County Road 33, and he stated h~s support for the Plan.
Mayor I-2Linzing closed the public hearing.
All the CouncLhxaembers thanked the Task Force and the boards and commissions for ali the
work, time, and effort they put into the Plan.
Councihnember Tveite stated that he is in support of the Plan. He views the Plan as a
preservation of land by alloxving the establishment of Green~vays. He stated that there is no
xvay for the Plan to be perfect and to please everyone.
Councilmember Motto stated the folloxving concerns with the Land Use Plan and Mr. Fifield
provided a response to each of the concerns
Concern Response
The area north of County Road 33 should not be
opened up to allow 2 ~/~ acre lots without any
infrastructure to support it.
A sexver and water capaci~ plan should be
completed prior to approving the Land Use Plan.
The Commercial districts have been decreased
~rom the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and more
areas need to be designated Commercial in the
new Plan.
The designated high density areas around the
The area is already open for higher
density development (duster
developments). The city should
determine if the area is going to remain
unsewered in its ultimate form.
Agree that a sexver and water capacity
~lan eventually needs to be completed.
Agree that more Commercial dismcts
are needed. City needs to review
sewer capacity before establishing any
more Commercial districts. Areas that
could be considered are the Highway
169 corridor and east [-lSghway 10. East
Highway 10 area is not market driven at
this dx'ne.
High density residential put near ra/lway
railway station do not have a r_ransportation
system to support the increase traffic.
The residential areas near the former Ron's
Foods site is still designated residential even
though it is sandwiched between Commercial
and Industrial zoned property.
due to mass transit system in area and to
be near the Business Park 'future
employment base).
Not addressed.
Cit7 Council Minutes
November [7, 2003
Page 5
There is not statement in the Plan that
Commercial and Industrial districts are given a
preference over Residential dismcts when it
comes to sexver and water expansion
Not addressed.
Counciknaernber Dierz stared that he is concerned about opening up the land north
County Road 33 to be developed into txvo and a half acre lots.
Mavor l<ainzing stated that property, o;vners north of County Road 33 petitioned to have
the area developed into smaller lots. She stated that this area is no longer considered
a~iculmral. She stated that there should be a phase hnplemented plan prior to rezoning the
area and allowing any development.
Councilmember I,,~uester stared that she is concerned about the lack of commercial districts
m the Plan. She stated that [and east o£ Highway 169 along the corridor needs to be
addressed as to its furore use. She stared that that there is a need to implement a phasing in
of the Plan. Councilmember Kuester stated that transportation is the most hnportant issue
that needs to be addressed with any furore development. She questioned how the ciW could
be £mancially viable ii'it Limits residential groxvth. She is concerned it may become
unaffordable for residents to Live in Elk River.
Mayor lCamzing stated that Elk River residents want to see the area remain as "City and
Countz7 Flow Together" and she believes the objectives o£ the Comprehensive Plan reflects
this desire. Mayor I,aLmzing stated d~at the Plan shows Elk River as expanding out to a
population of not more than 35,000 residents in a 44 square mile area and that this is low
compared to surrounding communities. People moving to Elk River will end up paying a
higher tax for enjoying a more rural commurdty. She stated that the tax base ~vould be
supported by more commercial and industrial development along Highxvay 169. Mayor
I,~Snzing also expressed concerns over the sexver capacity and its expansion to the east.
Mr. Fifield stated that the dry needs to complete a UmeLine on the implementation of the
issues discussed (sewer capacity, zoning, etc).
Councilmember Dietz stated that he believes it is possible that sewer and ~vater could some
day be extended to the properties north of County Road 33 and the city needs to take this
into consideration before adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Modn stated concerns about the city being built out beyond the Plan's
recommendation and what xvould happen if another sewer plant were to be built.
Plannmg Commissioner Dana Anderson stated that he was disappointed in the amount of
public input received on the Plan during the process. He suggested that the Council give
staff and the Planning and Park and Recreation Comrmssion direction on changes they
would like to see implemented in the Plan and postpone its approval t-or a month. He stated
that both Commissions learned and reaLized the un-inventoried resources that are available
for greenway and tra_il corridor development.
Counc/Imember Motto requested language changes to parts of the Plan.
MOVED BY MAYOR K_LINZING AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TVEITE TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH
THE CHANGES SUGGESTED IN CLIFF LUNDBERG'S LETTER AND BY
City Council Minutes Page
November 17, 2003
COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN WITH STAFF TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ZONE
CH~'4GES AND THAT ONE-QUARTER MILE EAST OF HIGHWAY 169
FROM COUNTY ROAD 21 TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY
REMAIN A1 AGRICULTURAL.
Councilmember Dietz questioned if the Plan ~vas approved, then could anyone come to the
Council For a zone change to allow ~'or 2 V2 acre lots north o~- County, Road 33. He stated
that the tmplementarion stages for the zone changes to the ciW code should be completed
prior to adopdon o( the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor P,,Zinzing stated that the Plan could be adopted now and the zone changes
hnplemented at a lnter dace.
City Attorney Peter Beck stated that it would be best to finish the LmplementaUon issues of'
d~e Plan and then to approve the Plan at a later date. He stated that the Council could
approve the Plan and then establish a moratorium. He stated it would be better for the city,
to create stronger regulatory controls before adopdng the Plan.
Nfs. McPherson suggested that the Mayor divide her modon into parts so staff could have
better direction on the Counc/ls intentions. The Mayor deciSned to change her modon.
Much discussion was held on the Umeframe for implementing the changes suggested in the
Plan.
MAYOR KLINZING WITHDREW HER ORIGINAL MOTION.
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN TO TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ONE MONTH TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO
DRAFT AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND TO ESTABLISH MORE LEGAL
CLARITY FOR ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The Council took a five minute break at 9:10 p.m.
6.2.
.Request bv Ciw of Elk River for an Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-1, Definitions,
Regarding Governmental Buildings and Facilities, Governmental Offices, and Jails, Public
Hearing-Case No. OA 03-07
Director of Planning Michele McPherson submitted the staff report. Ms. McPherson stated
that due to the discrepancy bet~veen Council and staff regarding the interpretation of City
Code Section 30.1, regarding Governmental Offices, staff has proceeded to more clearly
define what is intended as a j,-Ul that is operated in conjunction with a county courthouse.
Mayor ICiinzing opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to ti-tis issue, Mayor
I¥ainzing closed the public hearing:
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER K'UESTER AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 03-17 AMENDING
SECTION 30-1 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES.
Development Potential North of County Road 33
Property Estimated Subdivision Potential - Subdivision Potential - New
Owner Acres Current Density
10 acre min Cluster* 2.5 acre min Cluster*
Bloomdahl 120 12 26 48 55
Dollansky 78 8 17 31 36
Bush 260 26 56 104 120
Gillette 120 12 26 48 55
(landlocked)
C Thompson 197 20 43 79 91
(split by Cty
Rd#i)
C Thompson 60 6 13 24 28
(landlocked)
R&J 315 31 67 126 145
Thompson
(split by Cty
Rd #1)
Bodnar 93.5 9 19 37 42
Lemmon 122.5 12 26 49 56
Weinand 80 8 17 32 37
R. Toth 200 20 43 80 92
Schulz 617.9 62 133 247 284
Family Farm
Gmys 225 22 47 90 103
Hoffman 163 16 34 65 75
Kastendick 136 14 30 54 62
(split by Cty
Ra #21)
Scheel 149 15 32 60 69
L. Toth 237.5 24 52 95 109
Black 85 8 17 34 39
Total 325 698 1,303 1,498'*
*This number is the base number of lots and does not include any bonuses.
**As of May 2003, there were 4,759 single family homes in the city and as of April 2003,
there were 772 detached single family lots available.
Ridgewood Hills iA1 Y 1996 11 9 2
Rolling Hills :Al Y 2000 29 17 12
Blackberry Hills A1 Y 1999 4 4 C
Ridges of Rice Lake A1 Y 2001 70 46 24
Kingdom Estates A1 2003 7 Y 2003 7 1 6
A1 Total 0 125 81 44
Hillside Estates 7th PUD Y 1997 18 18 0
Meadowvale Townhomes PUD Y 1999 26' 22 4
Trott Brook Farms 3rd PUD 1999 47 46 1
Trott Brook Farms 4th PUD Y 1999 38 38 0
Trott Brook Farms 6th PUD Y 2000 58 18 40
Trott Brook Farms 7th PUD Y 2001 36 32 4
Trott Brook Farms 8th PUD Y 2001 55 31 24
The Woods at Hillside PUD Y 2000 15 14 1
The Woods at Hillside 2nd PUD Y 2000 21 10 11
The Woods at Hillside 3rd PUD Y 2003 16 7 9
Twin Lake Townhomes PUD Y 2000 29 14 15
Twin Lake Townhomes 2nd PUD Y 2001 32 28 4
Twin Lake Townhomes 3rd PUD Y 2001 14 14 0
Mississippi Ridge PUD Y 2001 22 10 12
Elk River Station Phase 1 PUD 2002 298 Y 2003 134 96 38
Marshes of Trott Brook PUD 2002 110 Y 2002 81 17 64
PUD Total 1008 1085 858 227
Oakwood Forest Rla Y 1997 14 14 0
Oak Ridge 1st Rla Y 1997 2 2 0
Oak Run Rla Y 1997 3 2 1
Parkview Addition Rla Y 1997 l i 0 1
Pheasant Run Rla Y 1996 14 14 0
Preserve Estates Rla Y 1999 27 23 4
Weath erwood R 1 a Y 1996 21 21 0
Windsor Park Rla Y 1999 25 22 3
Windsor Park 2nd Rla Y 2001 6 2 4
Windsor Woods Rla Y 1998 20 18 2
Whitetail Ridge Rla Y 2000 17 17 0
Whipple Hill Rla Y 2001 8 2 6
Meadowwoods Village Rla Y 2001 39 7 32
Windsor Park 3rd Rla 2002 93 Y 2002 93 5 88
Echo Hill Rla 2002 5 Y 2002 5 1 4
Birchview R la 2002 5 Y 2002 5 I 4
Windsor Oak' of Elk River Rla 2002 33 Y 2002 32 1 31
Rla Total 136 343 163 180
Island View 4th Rlb Y 1997 3 1 2
Mississippi Oaks 3rd Rlb 2002 50 Y 2002 50 10 40
Island View 5th Rlb 7 7 0
Rlb Total 50 126 84 42
Cherrywood Hills Rlc Y 1997 46 46 C
Hidden Creek iRlc Y 1998 8 8 C
Lafayette Woods R lc Y 1996 75 75 0
Lafayette Woods 2nd Rlc Y 1997 5 li 49 2
Lafayette Woods 3rd Rlc Y 1998 37 36 1
Lafayette Woods 4th Rlc Y 1999 38 35i 3
Nordic Woods RI c Y 1996 41 41 0
Park Knoll Rlc Y 1997 7 7~ 0
Fox Haven Rlc Y 2001 19 81 11
Windsor Oak Hill 1st Rlc Y 2000 40: 35' 5
Hillside 8th Rlc 2001 94 Y 2001 5 5 0
Windsor Oak Hill 2nd Rlc Y 2002 46i 31 15
Nordic Hills Rlc 2002 50 Y 2002 50 21 29
Rlc Total 144 664 598 66
~Mississippi Oaks 2nd Rid I Y 1996 58 47 11
Rld Total 0 181 170 1
Kliever Lake Fields Rle 2001 98 Y 2001 59 10 491
Park Pointe Rle 2002 97 Y 2002 97 34 63
Elk Meadows Rle 2002 5 Y 2003 5 2 3
Rle Total 239 162 47 115
Auburn Commons R2b I Y 1990 7 7 0
Bailey Beck R2bI Y 1990 16 10 6
R2b Total 0 34 28 6~
Trott Brook South, Prelim R3 2001 149 Y Y 0
Trott Brook Crossing, Preli~ R3 2002 103 Y Y 0
Trott Brook South R3 Y 2002 130 70 6C
Trott Brook South R3 Y 2002 19 3
Trott Brook South 2nd R3 Y 2002 54 2 52
Kliever Lake Fields East R3 2002 116 Y 2002 44 3 41
West Oaks R3 2003 2003 15 0 15
R3 Total 368 262 78 169
Grand Total 1952 2982 2107 860
Oo
Large Development Parcels North of County Road 33
221ST A
197TH AV
oo
Phasing Plan
39?TH AV