5.7. SR 07-24-2000"ity of
Item # 5.7.
River
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Michele McPherson~irector
of Planning
DATE:
July 20, 2000
SUBJECT:
Case Number: LU 00-5
Request by Gold Nugget Development to
Amend the Urban Service District Map;
Public Hearing
Request
The applicant requests that the Urban Service District Map be amended to allow
services to be provided to the subject property prior to 2007.
Location
80 acres in the Southwest corner of the intersection of 181st Avenue and Fillmore Street
Zoning/Land Use
Rl e (Single Family Residential)/MR (Medium Density Residential)
Attachments
· Location Map
· Urban Service District Map
· Applicant's Narrative
· Resolution No. 00-
· Staff Report dated October 20, 1997
· October 20, 1997 City Council Minutes
· Staff Report dated September 30, 1997
· Staff Report dated July 22, 1997
· Proposed Urban Service District Map, 1995
· November 27, 1995 City Council Minutes
Background
In 1995, the City, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, expanded the Urban
Service District to the east to accommodate future residential, commercial, and
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/LU 00-5
July 20, 2000
Page 2
industrial growth. At that time, the Urban Service District was extended to include the
area north of County Road 12 as far east as Cleveland Street and north to County
Road 13, excluding Sunset Ridge.
In 1997, the City initiated an amendment to the Urban Service District to include the
area south of County Road 12, east to Fillmore Street and south to 175th Avenue. This
was prompted after a proposed subdivision with 2 ~ acre lots was considered by the
Planning Commission for the subject property. The amended area is scheduled not to
receive utilities and assessments until 2007.
Analysis
The applicant requests that the 2007 date be removed from the subject parcel so that
utilities may be extended immediately to the parcel. This would facilitate residential
development under either the current Rle (12,000 square foot minimum lot area) or a
PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning district. The applicant has not submitted any
development plans at this time.
Utilities to serve this area will be provided from the Trott Brook Farms development. By
the end of 2000 or early 2001, both water and sewer trunk systems will be installed to
the southeast corner of Trott Brook Farms. Any developer of the subject parcel would
then need to "pull" them across County Road 12 to service the parcel.
Amending the Urban Service District to allow utilities to this parcel is a growth
management decision. Denying the request would limit residential growth in this area
until Trott Brook Farms is fully developed. Parcels north and east of Trott Brook will
receive trunk systems through Trott Brook Farms. Limiting residential growth in Elk
River may ease the burden on the School District; a concern that has been expressed
by leaders and residents, but it must be acknowledged that there are other parcels in
the City with services that are yet to be platted or have received preliminary plat
approval. In addition, growth is occurring outside of Elk River within the School District.
The developer has indicated a willingness to absorb the financial costs of improvements
as well as the assessments (the 1999 rate was $6,000 per acre). Staff believes that
this parcel can be serviced on its own without impact to other parcels within this area of
the Urban Service District. Eventually, however, as other parcels develop, utilities will
be connected together completing a "looped" system.
If there is no financial impact to the City for the extension of services to this parcel, staff
has no objection to the amendment of the date utilities being extended to the parcel. It
is the City's intent that utilities are extended to this area; the 2007 date was adopted to
be sensitive to property owners in this area and defer the impact of the assessments to
a future date. Amending the district may encourage other landowners in this area to
develop sooner than 2007. It should be noted, howeverl that assessments will begin
for the properties in this area in 2007.
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/LU 00-5
July 20, 2000
Page 3
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the request at its June
27, 2000 meeting. Mr. Holzem, the property owner, stated that he was interested in
selling the property prior to having the assessments assigned to the property. No one
spoke for or against the request.
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the request to the City
Council. Chair Mesich voted against the request, citing the adverse impact to public
services and the school district additional residential development would have.
Recommendation
The request to extend services to this parcel prior to 2007 is not inconsistent with the
overall Urban Service District plan. The developer is also willing to bear the cost of the
improvements. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the applicant's request
to amend the date of the Urban Service District Map from 2007 to 2001 for only the
subject parcel.
PUD
LOCATION
C~TY PARK
Ci~ of
LOCATION
MAP
I13065 Orono Parkway. P.O. Box 490 CASE:
Elk River, MN 55330
LU 00-5
N
II!I!I! !!!!! !I!!!! !!!!I!I I~
URBAN SERVICE AREA
City
Elk~iver
!
!
Requested Action
Gold Nugget Development, ]:nc. is requesting the City of Elk River to amend the
current Urban Service Area Map of the Comprehensive Plan to permit 80 acres
(see attached legal description) of the 2007 urban service area to be developed
in 200:~. The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of 181st
Avenue and Filmore St. The property is currently being used for agriculture.
The developer to the northwest of the subject site is currently anticipating an
improvement project which would extend both sewer and water to the northwest
corner of the site. Also, the City of Elk River is planning to upgrade 181st Avenue
in the summer of 2000. ]:F the subject site is permitted to develop, both the
utility extensions and road construction could be coordinated with the design and
planning of the site.
Utility extensions to the subject site can be accommodated both financially and
physically and not affect the other properties designated for development in
2007. Consequently, no change in land value or use would result. The current
Land Use IVlap identifies the subject site as Iow density residential. ]:f the
amendment is approved, Gold Nugget Development, ]:nc. would develop the site
based on single family residential densities.
CITY OF ELK RIVER
RESOLUTION NO. 00 -
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO INCLUDE A PROPERTY IN THE URBAN ~ERVICE DIgTRICT
CASE NO. LU 00-5
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.355, Subdivision 2, prescribes
the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing February 29,
2000, and recommended approval regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment
request for the property generally described as:
See Attached Exhibit A
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
amendment request and finds the following:
2.
3.
4.
The parcel is currently identified in the Comprehensive Plan as
Medium Density Residential and within the Urban Service District;
Urban services will be available for extension to the property from the
Trott Brook Farms Development in 2001;
There is no financial impact to the City of Elk River for the extension
of urban services to this parcel;
The parcel can be serviced without impact to other parcels within this
area of the Urban Service District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Elk River that the date for extension of urban services to be extended to this parcel
be amended from 2007 to 2001.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 24th day of July,
2000.
ATTEST:
Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor
Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk
s:\document\resoluti\lu00-5b.doc
EXHIBIT A
The North Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 1, Township 32, Range 26,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof, and situate in
Sherburne County, Minnesota.
~ty of
River
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Item #
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Steve Ach, City Planner
October 20, 1997
Consider Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Adjust the Urban
Service Boundary, Public Hearing
Case No. OA 97-10
6.13.
Issue
The City of Elk River has initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
consider adjusting the urban service boundary in the eastern part of Elk
River. The specific area under consider is bordered by County Road No. 12
on the north, Tyler Street alignment on the west, 175th Avenue on the south
and Fillmore Street on the east.
Attachments
· Report to the Planning Commission dated September 30, 1997
Overview
The area to be considered for inclusion into the urban service area currently
lies outside of the boundary and is zoned Rla (Single Family Residential).
Under the current zoning the property could be developed without city
services into lots with a minimum lot size of 2-1/2 acres. With having the
subject area located adjacent to the existing urban service boundary and
consisting of a majority of large undeveloped tracts of land, staff has
analyzed the possibility of having this area included as ultimately being
developed with urban services. As the Council is aware, the platting of 2-1/2
acres subdivisions often creates a boundary or barrier to the feasible and
practical extensions of city sewer and water. With the known and inevitable
development interest in eastern Elk River, it is easy to assume given the
opportunity, the proposed area to included in the urban service boundary
would develop at some point in time under urban densities.
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
Memo to the Mayor and City Council/OA 97-10
October 20, 1997
Page 2
During the Planning Commission meetings, affected residents from this area
spoke at the Planning Commission meeting with concerns ranging from
future assessments, timing of having utilities to serve the area and feasibility
to further subdivide some of the smaller tracts of land in the northwest
corner if utilities were ever extended into this area. To try and address these
concerns, staff has offered the following:
Timing for extending utilities into this area - Given the amount of land that
can develop north of County Road No. 12, it is u~li]rely utilities would have to
be extended into the subject area any sooner than 10 years from today's date.
Therefore, both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending if this
area is included, a footnote be added that the new area not receive city sewer
and water until the year 2007. The City Engineer has indicated that the
area north of County Road No. 12 can develop with utility extensions
virtually independent of the area south of County Road No. 12. Ultimately,
the subject area could be served by a lift station which is most l~](ely needed
in the southeast corner of the area north of County Road No. 12.
Future assessments - It is difficult to give the residents any guarantees on
what the future assessment policy will be when utilities are ultimately
extended into this area. However, ff past practice is any indication of how
future policies will be applied, the developer initiating the extension has
typically paid a majority of the costs associated with extending utilities into a
vacant area. The Council has also treated existing homes a little different to
allow time to hook up to the utility.
Who will initiate the request - The residents which spoke at the public
hearing indicated they would like to see the area remain rural with larger
tracts of land and preserving the farming opportunities which are there
today. Staff is in complete agreement with the residents - there is not need to
have this area develop given the developable land currently available.
However, staff believes the area will ultimately develop with the influence of
a developer and not require a city-initiated project. Therefore, if the
landowners have no interest in selling their property, the area can remain
rural in character for as long as the property owners desire. However, if in
fact it is ever developed, it can be done efficiently at urban densities with city
sewer and water and at the property owner's request
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission reports and letter from the
residents.
~\shrdoc\councfl\oa97-10x.doc
Memo to the Mayor and City Council]OA 97-10
October 20, 1997
Page 3
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to adjust the urban service boundary by including the area
described in this report within the urban service boundary. The approval
shall include the following conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission:
UTILITIES SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED INTO THIS AREA ANY SOONER THAN 10 YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL.
FUTURE CITY COUNCIL'S CONTINUE THE SAME POLICY FOR RELIEF FOR CURRENT
RESIDENTS FROM POSSIBLE ASSESSMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A UTILITY EXTENSION.
If the City Council approves the urban service boundary adjustment a
subsequent action will be necessary. Similar to other residential areas
within the urban service boundary, a rezoning to Rle (Single Family
Residential) which requires a 10 acre minimum lot size prior to sewer and
water being available will need to be brought before the Planning
Commission and City Council.
fi\shrdoc\councfl\oa97-10x.doc
City Council Minutes
15
October 20, ]997
Page
6.13. Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Adjust the Urban Service
Boundary, Public Hearinq Case No. OA 97-10
Steve Ach indicated that the City is requesting a comprehensive plan
amendment to adjust the urban service boundary in the eastern part of Elk River.
He explained that the specific area under consideration is bordered by County
Road No. 12 on the north, Tyler Street alignment on the west, 175th Avenue on
the south and Fillmore Street on the east. He explained that under the current
zoning the property could be developed without city services into lots with 2 1/2
acre minimum lot sizes. Steve Ach stated that the property is located adjacent
to the existing urban service boundary (:nd consists of a majority of I(~rge
undeveloped tracts of land.
Steve Ach stated that concerns of affected residents were brought forth at the
Planning Commission Meeting. These concerns consisted of future assessments,
timing of having utilities to serve the (:rea and the feasibility to further subdivide
some of the smaller tracts of land in the northwest corner if utilities were ever
extended into this area.
Steve Ach indicated that the Planning Commission and staff are recommending
approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. He further indicated that in
order to address the concerns of the residents, Planning Commission and staff are
recommending that utilities not be extended for ten years from the date of
council action.
Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing.
Emma Holzem, affected property owner consisting of an 80 acre farm, requested
the council to include the 10 year timeframe to allow her family the opportunity
to continue farming the I(~nd and to plan for the future.
There being no one else for or against the maffrer, Mayor Duitsman closed the
public hearing.
Steve Ach reminded the Council or developer could request an amendment to
the ten year timeframe.
COUNClLMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO ADJUST THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY BY INCLUDING THE AREA
DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
UTILITIES SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED INTO THIS AREA ANY SOONER THAN 10
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL.
FUTURE CITY COUNCILS CONTINUE THE SAME POLICY FOR RELIEF FOR
CURRENT RESIDENTS FROM POSSIBLE ASSESSMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A
UTILITY EXTENSION.
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED .5-0.
.,fy of
River
Item # 6.4.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Steve Ach, City Planner.~~
DATE:
September 30, 1997
SUBJECT:
Consider Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Adjust the Urban
Service Boundary, Public Hearing
Case No. OA 97-10
Issue
The City of Elk River has initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
consider adjusting the urban service boundary in the eastern part of Elk
River.
Location
The area considered to be included in the urban service boundary is bordered
by County Road No. 12 on the north, Tyler Street ahgnment on the west,
175th Avenue on the south, and Fillmore Street on the east.
Back~round
This item was presented to the Planning Commission on July 22nd where
pubhc testimony was received from concerned residents. One of the residents
presented a letter from the concerned citizens within the proposed area to be
included in the urban service area (see attached). At that previous public
hearing meeting, one of the issues the residents raised related to the timing
of the when utilities would actually be extended to serve this area. As staff
pointed out at that meeting, a time schedule could be included as part of this
amendment preventing any further extension of utilities into this area until
a certain date. For example, based on the number of developable acres north
of County Road No. 12 and the expected timetable to develop this area, the
area proposed to be included would not have to be served for at least another
10 years. Therefore, if the area was included in the urban service boundary,
a notation could be made that no utilities would be extended in this area
until the year 2007.
Planning Commission/OA 97-10
September 10, 1997
Page 2
Even with an established date of when utilities could be extended into this
area, chances are the development community will be one to propose the
extension of utilities. Much l~ke the Waddy Schulze development which is
forcing the utilities in the eastern part of Elk River, a similar situation will
most l~kely occur in this new area proposed to be included in the urban
service boundary. If the request to extend utilities is prior to the established
date, a comprehensive plan amendment would be required.
As staffhas pointed out in the past, managing the City's growth by
controlling the extension of utilities and establishing the proper long range
planning practices of a well-planned compact growth pattern, the City is able
to provide for a much more efficient extension of public services while
protecting the rural character of the community from the possibility of
unnecessary urban sprawl.
Please refer to the attached for additional information on this issue.
Other Issues
Many residents at the previous Planning Commission meeting on this issue
were concerned with assessments. By inclua~ug this area in the urban
service boundary there would be no immediate assessments. Staff believes
this area could stand on its own; therefore, would not be assessed until the
utilities were actually extended to serve the area.
Recommendation
It is recommended the Planning Commission recommend approving the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to adjust the urban service boundary
including the area described in the report. Furthermore, if the Planning
Commission would agree in deferring extension of utilities into this area for a
certain time period, a date can also be established preventing the extension
of utilities into this area prematurely. Lastly, if the urban service boundary
is adjusted, a rezoning of the area to reflect a residential zoning district
consistent with other residential areas within the urban service boundary
will need to follow.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\pc\oa97-10x.doc
July 15, 1997
TO:
City of Elk R/ver
Planning Commission Department
FROM: Concerned citizens in proposed Urban Service Area
Petition City Urban Service Area (City Sewer & Water)
Case: OA 97-10
Our neighborhood would like to provide input to the City of Elk River's proposal for
bringing city sewer and water to the eastern urban area of Elk River roughly located
between the proposed City park, County Road 12, Fillmore Street and 175th Ave
NW (also lmown by locals as "Snake Trail").
Most res/dents within and directly surrounding this area are opposed to a system
that bx-ings sewer and water i~,to fl:eir ncighborl~ood. Their needs are currently
being met by ,'"
Typicaily, these properties are larger in size titan a dcvelop~nent requiring sewer and
water would be. For tl~¢ most' prat these propcrties have been designed to take
advantage of the Features and fidl land area upon xxkich they are built. It is not
feasible for most ef these residents to hook up to a city sewer and water system due
to this lay-out of their property. 'l'l~c ltigh financial cost which goes p'fired with a
water and sewer sys~tzm, can not be deferred by selling off a portion of their land
due to thc iocaiion of ~heir h,:,,ues, ¢irive ways, access, ponds, etc...
A number ot'thcse properties range fi'om two to five acre lets or more. A pa_rticular
property et' six acces w/thin titis proposal area which can not subdMde would be
,~-,~,.~,~,,.,. ,q,p.;.~x,,,,.~c,y $:;8,u00 for tile tn. tm: line plus $38,000 to bring sewer 1/4
mile along ti;c drive way i'..las ti;e added expense of hook up and eliminating well
~I septic, wlfich could bo a few thousm~d d~ :lars more. This is a horrifying
prospect for any one to face. We don't believe it would be the intent of our City
Cotmcil or m~y Developer, lo impart fftis k/nd of £mancial burden on the faro/lies
in our City.
Case: OA 97-10 Page 2 of 2
The total number of properties affected by this proposal would be relatively few.
We would therefore, propose that they be exempted from inclusion in the water and
sewer project all together.
In addition, roughly 80 acres of the proposed area is being actively fanned by a
large family dairy operation. This "University of Minnesota Demonstration Farm"
consists of about 140 milking cows and another herd of 100 "replacement" cattle.
In order to support this business about 500 acres is needed of which this 80 acres is
a part. In addition, the proposed area includes about 30 more acres which are being
rented. With the loss of 110 acres, this final "American Da/ry Stronghold" in the
City of Elk River will almost certainly come to an end.
As a whole, the residents in the affected neighborhoods, feel that if a developer
wants to build homes in an area w/thin this section, they could do one of two things:
· Absorb the total cost of the city water and sewer system that serves
them, into their own project.
· Develop the area in a similar fashion as "Hidden Creek" w/th m/nimum
2.5 acre lots with a well and septic system for each home.
We appreciate this opportunity to prov/de you w/th our comments and we have faith
in your leadership. We believe, that w/th your help, this growth phase can be
brought to a positive conclusion for all concerned in the City of Elk River.
:y of
!
iver
MEMORANDUM
Item ~5.12.
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Steve Ach, City Planner~~
July 22, 1997
Consider Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to Adjust the Urban
Service Boundary, Public Hearing
Case No. OA 97-10
Issue.
The City of Elk River has initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
adjust the urban service boundary in eastern Elk River.
Location
The area considered to be included in the urban service boundary is bounded
by County Road No. 12 on the north, the Tyler Street alignment on the west,
175th Avenue on the south, and Fillmore Street on the east.
Background
One of the major components of the updated Comprehensive Plan was to
consider expanding the urban service boundary for future urban development
opportunities. This would include city water and sewer services and a
variety of urban densities similar to the development pattern found within
the city's current urban district. After reviewing several options of expanding
the urban service boundary, the City Council approved the expansion of the
urban service boundary as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
The Planning Commission may recall within the past six months a
preliminary plat was submitted for a site of approximately 80 acres within
the area identified to be considered for expansion of the urban service
boundary. The proposed plat was a 2-1/2 acre subdivision which basically
included a half mile cul-de-sac to serve the property. During review of this
preliminary plat, a few Commission members made a comment relative to
the inappropriateness of this 2-1/2 acre development in an area which may be
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: ¢612) 441-7425
considered for city utilities sometime in the future. However, based on the
present zoning of Rla, the preliminary plat was allowed to proceed forward.
The development was eventually withdrawn, due to some problems the
developers experienced with the property owner.
Overview
The area to be included within the urban service boundary totals
approximately 480 acres. This 480 acres can be broken down as follows:
· 80 acres is Hillside Park which is currently owned by the City
· Approximately 50 acres in consumed by Clever's Marsh
· Approximately 20 acres owned by Minnesota Department of
Transportation
· Approximately another 30 acres is identified wetlands according to the
National Wetland Inventory Maps.
Therefore, based on the ownership of the properties, wetlands, and other
restricting factors, the area probably has approximately 280 - 300 acres for
development potential. By including this area in the urban service boundary
there would be no immediate or foreseeable impact for the p~operty owners in
terms of assessments for utilities. As presented to the Planning Commission
in the past, typically, the costs associated with extension of utilities has been
initiated by the development community and absorbed by those properties
directly affected. It is anticipated that if this area is included in the urban
service boundary, it would basically be reserving this area for possible
development to an urban standard. If this area is included in the urban
service boundary, it would be appropriate to consider rezoning the properties
from the current Rla zoning district (2-1/2 acre minimum lot size) to a
residential zoning district consistent with other areas within the urban
service boundary.
The area that has been selected to be considered for inclusion in the urban
service boundary appears to be a logical extension of the existing boundary
that has been adopted by the Council. The proposed area is bounded on the
east by a large lot rural subdivision which is typically d~f6cult to serve with
pubhc utihties because of the cost associated with such an improvement and
also bounded On the south by Cargill. The extension of trunk utilities into
east Elk River may improve the efficiencies of some of the utihty
improvements necessary in the east Elk River project. It is not anticipated
that this area would be served until a petition has been submitted by any of
the affected property owners within this area. The subject area south of
County Road 12 may possibly stand on its own and could be developed after
the entire area between County Road 12 and 13 is built out.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\pc\oa97-10.doc
Recommendation
It is recommended the Planning Commission approve the Comprehensive
Plan amendment expanding the urban service boundary to include the area
bounded by County Road 12, Fillmore Avenue, 175th Avenue and the Tyler
Street alignment. Also, if the expansion is approved it is recommended the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council a rezoning of the
affected properties occur to be consistent with other residential areas within
the urban service area.
\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\pc\oa97- lO.doc
i!!i!i!!iii!iii!ii'"'"'"'"~...'"~'"'"'""..~... .............::::::::::::::::::::::::::
tS'T~
./ 1 ~'TM
I~.TM
1
177T~
176TN
175TH
172ND
171C:T
~ 70TH
RI&
City of
CASE: 04 97~/~
LOCATION
.. MAP
iver
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330
Exiating Urban Service Area
Cu"rently ~ Area
Propoeed Urban ~::~n4ce Area
A~ Recomended By SI~H~ C~M~
Ad~ Urb~ 8~ce Area
C~ and 8tafl
FIGURE 3-D i:
URBAN SERVICE AREA tl
PROPOSED REVISIONS
Elk River City Council Minutes
November 27, 1995
MEETING 0F THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1995
Page 7
Members Present: Mayor Duitsman, Councilmembers Dietz,
Scheel, Farber, and Holmgren
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Sandra
Thackeray, City Clerk; Steve Ach, City
Planner; Terry Maurer, City Engineer; Dave Sellergren,
City Attorney
Also Present: Bob Minton, Steering Committee Chair;
Louise Kuester, Planning Commission
Chair
1. Call Meeting To Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of
the Elk River City Council was called to order at 7
p.m. by Mayor Duitsman.
2. Consider 11/27/95 Council Agenda
COUNCILMEMBER FARBER MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 27,
1995, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
3. Public Hearing to Consider Comprehensive Plan
Mayor Duitsman requested that the following
entered into the official record:
items be
Petition from Fillmore Street neighborhood
indicating their opposition to the extension
of sewer and water to their neighborhood.
o
Letter from Ebner's Live
regarding their opposition to
water and sewer extension to
Bait, Inc.,
the proposed
eastern Elk
River.
Petition to Mayor, City Council,
Commission, and staff submitted by
Specht regarding the opposition
extension of urban services.
Planning
Kathy A.
to the
Mayor Duitsman indicated that the Council would be
receiving public input on the Comprehensive Plan that
was currently drafted by the Steering Committee. He
stated that the Park Plan and Transportation Plan would
not be considered at this date.
Louise Kuester, planning commission chair, commented on
the process involved in putting together the
Comprehensive Plan. She indicated that the process
involved numerous Elk River citizens who were part of
the Steering Committee. She stated that many Elk River
residents appeared at the public hearings to give input
on the Plan. Louise Kuester further explained that the
Transportation Plan and Park Plan will not be
considered this evening.
Bob Minton, steering committee chair, reviewed the
steps that were involved in completing the
Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that the
Comprehensive Plan is an update of an existing
Comprehensive Plan from 1988. Bob Minton thanked all
those involved in their efforts to draft the Plan,
including staff, Steering Committee members, and
citizens who attended the meetings.
Mayor Duitsman indicated that he would take public
input on each section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Utilities - City Planner Steve Ach presented the
information on the Utilities Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan. He indicated that the utilities section of the
Plan relates to the e_x~ansion of the urban service
boundary. Steve Ach explained that the Steering
Committee recommended a small area for urban service
expansion while the Planning Commission recommended a
larger area in order to accommodate long-term urban
growth.
Mayor Duitsman requested public input on this issue.
Dave Cieslak, .~ 10383 165th Avenue,
indicated that they have currently invested $3
million to the existing Cargill facilities in Elk
River. He indicated that there is no need for
sewer and water at their facility and they would
see no benefit to their current operations with
the extension of utilities or the urban service
district.
o
Dwight Kirkeide, 11230 173rd Avenue North,
indicated that he was opposed to the extension of
the urban service area. Mr. Kirkeide stated that
he distributed a flyer to all residents in the
proposed urban service area relating to the
expansion of sewer and water facilities. He
indicated he felt that the proposed Plan would
harm the people in the community.
o
John Benver, Fillmore Street, indicated he
recently moved to Elk River and stated that he is
opposed to the expansion of the urban service
district as he sees no benefit to his property.
o
Dawn Beaudry, Fillmore Street, presented a
petition in opposition to the expansion of the
urban service area. She indicated she is against
the extension of sewer and water to her area.
Tony Krelin, 181st Avenue, questioned the Council
the assessments would begin for the
as
to
when
kproject. Mayor Duitsman explained that there are
no assessments proposed at this time.
o
Joanne Rousseau, Ebner's Bait, 17015 Highway 10,
indicated she is opposed to the expansion of the
urban service district and stated that if utility
extensions take place, Ebner's Bait will go out of
business.
Carl Shaw, 10596 191st Avenue, questioned the
procedure for hooking up to utilities. He
indicated that there are many homes in the area
that are a long distance from the road and
indicated that the cost would be very high for the
laterals. Mr. Shaw indicated he felt the
residents should have a general idea of the cost
o
11.
12.
13.
14.
prior to voicing their opinion on the issue. He
further suggested that the Council consider
different methods of assessment.
Janet Kotter, 19192 Tyler Street, indicated she is
opposed to the extension of services. She further
questioned what restrictions would be placed on
her land if she were in the urban service district
and if the expansion of the district would affect
the value of her land.
George Deschenes, Twin Lakes Road, indicated his
concern of utilities being developer driven to a
certain area. He suggested that no development be
allowed until services are extended from the core
outward.
Dennis Chuba, 10451 175th Avenue NW, discussed the
issue of allowing property owners that are in the
urban service district to subdivide their
property.
Roger McAlpine, Twin Lakes Road, indicated he was
opposed to the expansion of the district and
further indicated his concern regarding the cost
for sewer and water. He suggested that this
decision be based on a vote by the public.
Stan Chase, 16800 Highway 10, questioned what the
procedure was for voicing an opinion regarding the
urban service district.
Kathy Specht, suggested that the Council speak
into the microphones and that there be a
microphone available for each person at the front
table.
Tim Schneider, 17119 Highway 10, indicated he was
not opposed to the extension of the urban service
district, but that he was opposed to the high cost
to the residents. He further questioned why the
Planning Commission recommended expanding the
urban service area from what the Steering
Committee recommended.
15. Steve Bradford, Fillmore Street, indicated he was
16.
17.
20.
21.
not contacted by the Task Force regarding this
issue. He further questioned why the city needs
to expand the Wastewater Treatment Plant at this
time if there are no plans to extend sewer and
water to the eastern area of the city.
Jean Kieley, 14084 202nd Avenue North, indicated
she supported the City Council and Planning
Commission in approving the Comprehensive Plan.
She further indicated she would like to see the
City of Elk River develop in an organized manner.
Truman Moyer, indicated that he was opposed to the
expansion of the urban service area and the
extension of utilities. He indicated it could
possibly mean higher taxes to the residents of Elk
River because of the Green Acres involved in the
district.
Pat Holzem, indicated he is opposed to the
expansion of the urban and service district and
stated that he would have to move if a sewer and
water project goes through his area.
Charlie Houle, 6th Street & 17069 Highway 10 -
Houle Oil, indicated that the city needs a
commercial and industrial tax base and stated that
the Council must look at what is best for the
community. He stated he supports the Council in
their decision and that he is in favor of the
sewer and water extension for the urban service
area recommended by the Steering Committee.
Stoeffel Reitsma, County Road 12, indicated that
he had a problem with the service area that was
amended by the Planning Commission. He questioned
why the Planning Commission recommended the change
and further questioned what the population
estimates were for Elk River.
Dave Anderson, 14845 County Road 30, questioned
why the city could not develop as a rural
community. He indicated that the issue is what
type of community we want Elk River to look like.
22. Roland Benson, Highway 10, indicated that a
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Comprehensive Plan would be good if it encompasses
the right needs of the community.
Larry Hickman, business owner and resident,
indicated that the City of Elk River needs help to
draw more customers to the east side of the city.
He indicated that he is in favor of the extension
of urban services.
Robin Turtle, 13324 Ranch Road, questioned whether
the city was trying to run people with large
quantities of land out of town.
Richard Kurth, owner of Broadway Bar & Pizza,
indicated that he was opposed to the extension of
the urban service area. He stated that he has a
good septic system and good water.
Mark Korthal, 17379 Tyler Street, indicated that
he has seven acres of property and stated that the
Council should think about the cost to the land
owners for the extension of the services. He
stated that he is opposed to the extension of the
urban service area.
Marilyn Van Patten, 10451 175th Avenue, questioned
what will happen to existing businesses if sewer
and water is not in their area. She expressed her
concern regarding these businesses being able to
expand.
Harold Novotny, informed the Council that the
service district recommended by the Planning
Commission is dominated by swamp land and State of
Minnesota land. He questioned whether the state
would be assessed for the extension of services.
There were no other comments from the public regarding
the utilities issue.
Residential - Steering Committee Chair Bob Minton
indicated that the Steering Committee and Planning
Commission took a firm commitment in recommending that
the ten acre minimum lot size in the A1 zoning district