Agenda, Demographics, Resident planning 08-25-1994 CITY OF ELK RIVER
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
STEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Thursday, August 25, 1994
7 p.m.
City Hall - Council Chambers
ITEM NUMBER
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
9, 2. CONSIDER 8/25/94 AGENDA
3. CONSIDER 7/14/94 MINUTES
4. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
4.1 Population Estimates
4.2 Population Distribution
4.3 Housing Units
4.4 Construction Value
4.5 New Housing Units
4.6 1990-1993 Homes Sales
4.7 1994 Homes Sales
5. OVERVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREAS
5.1 North
5.2 Southwest
5.3 Central
5.4 Southeast
6. INTRODUCTION OF NORTH PLANNING AREA
6.1 General Characteristics
6.2 Inventory of North Planning Area
ill 6.3 Zoning Ordinance Text of Al and R1A Districts
ITEM NUMBER (CONTINUED)
0
7. DISCUSSION OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR RESIDENTIAL
8. OTHER BUSINESS
9. FUTURE MEETING
10. ADJOURNMENT
08/23/94 1:15 PM
CI
10
4PPROVE0
• MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER STEERING COMMITTEE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1994
Members Present: Chairman Minton, Committee Members: Hank Duitsman, Pat
Dwyer, Dick Hinkle, Manly Glines, Mary McDevitt, Lloyd Barthel,
Arne Engstrom, Keith Holme, Chris Kreger, Dave Anderson, Dana
Anderson and Mark Lucas. Committee Member Mary Eberly
arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Members Absent: Committee Members Merry Sipe and Bill Birrenkott
Staff Present: Steve Ach, City Planner
1. Call Meeting To Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Steering
Committee was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Minton.
2. Consider Steering Committee Agenda
. Chair Minton added the following item to the August 25, 1994 Steering
Committee agenda:
Item 3.1. - Report on meeting with Downtown Development Corporation
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 25, 1994 STEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA AS AMENDED. PAT DWYER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 13-0.
3. Consider Steering Committee Minutes
DICK HINKLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 14, 1994 STEERING COMMITTEE
MINUTES. KEITH HOLME SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 13-0.
3.1. Report on Meeting with Downtown Development Corporation
Chair Minton reported that he met with the Downtown Development
Corporation. He did not feel there was a consensus among the business owners
regarding plans for the downtown area and that they would need to discuss
these issues again at a later date .
5. Overview of Residential Planning Areas
City Planner Steven Ach reviewed the four residential planning areas:
•
Steering Committee Minutes Page 2
August 25, 1994
5.1. North PPlafEi• 5.2. Southwest
5.3. Central
5.4. Southeast
6. Introduction of North Planning Area
6.1. General Characteristics
Comprised mainly of two zoning districts; R1A (Single Family
Residential)and A-1 (Agricultural Conservation). The minimum lot size is 21/2
acres and 10 acres, respectively. There are currently no plans to extend
water and sewer into the north planning area.
6.2. Inventory of North Planning Area
TOTAL ACRES 15,934 AC
Acres Zoned Al (Agricultural Conservation) 9,266 AC
Acres Zoned R 1 a(Single Family Residential) 6,332 AC
Acres Zoned ME (Mineral Excavation) 2,173 AC
Other 336 AC
Total Acres Restricted (i.e., Wetlands)3,847 AC
Estimated Number of Dwelling Units 1,090
Steve Ach noted that the Planning Commission took action at their last
meeting to recommend that a large portion of the northern area along
• Highway 169 be rezoned to allow gravel mining and mineral excavation.
6.3. Zoning Ordinance Text of A 1 and R 1 A Districts
Steve Ach stated that an excerpt from the City's Zoning Ordinance was
included in the committee members' packets which described the
intended characteristics and composition of each district and their
development standards. He further stated that an excerpt from the
existing Comprehensive Plan was also included in the committee
members' packets, outlining the goals and policies for residential
development.
4. Demographic Information
Steve Ach explained that the 1994 City of Elk River Demographic Statistics being
presented were taken from the U.S. 1990 Census figures from the State
Demographer's Office.
4.1. Population Estimates
Steve Ach noted that the population has been increasing over the years,
with the most significant increases occurring as follows:
1960 population 1,763- 1970 population 2,252 (+27.7%)
1970 population 2,252- 1980 population 6,785 (+201.2%)
•
1980 population 6,785- 1990 population 11,143 (+64%)
Steering Committee Minutes " Pe U
August 25, 1994 ift
VEI
He added that he would expect the year 2000 population estimate
(15,000-18,000)would likely be toward the upper end of that estimate.
4.2. Population Distribution
A large percentage of the City's population is in the 25-44 age group. The
second largest group is the 5-17 year old group, signifying that a majority
of Elk River's population is young families with children.
4.3. Housing Units
Of the 3,887 housing units reported in 1990, approximately 25 percent
are renter occupied. The majority of home values are in the $50,00-
$99,000 range.
4.4. Construction Value
1988 was a record year for residential construction at $24,452,604,
decreasing to $9,736,806 in 1991, then increasing to approximately
$16,000,000 in 1993.
4.5. New Housing Units
During the years 1988 through 1993, 2,440 new housing units were created.
Of those units, 1,600 were single family, 62 twin homes, 124 townhomes,
and 654 apartment units. The single family construction made up
approximately 65 percent of the total; twin homes and townhomes made
up 8 percent, and apartment units comprises 27 percent of the total.
• 4.6. 1990-1993 Home Sales
There were 171 homes sold in 1990, compared to 211 in 1993. The median
sale price moved up from $84,225 in 1990 to $100,000 in 1993.
4.7. 1994 Home Sales
Steve Ach presented information contained in the 1994 Anoka County
Home Sales recap of various communities in the area, comparing the
number of single family homes sold and the median selling price. Steve
noted that there were 130 homes sold in the January-June 1993 time
period and 103 in the January-June 1994 period. The average sale price
rose to $106,444 in 1994. According to the information in the report, Elk
River is among the top communities in home sales.
At this time, members of the Steering Committee introduced themselves and
identified the group they are representing.
7. Discussion of Goals and Policies for Residential
Cecilia Scheel, City Council representative of Ward 2, 10271 213th Avenue N.W.,
expressed her concern that developing farm land into 10 acre parcels is cost
prohibitive due to the expense of putting in roads. She stated that most farmers
will be robbed of their retirement because of the minimum 10 acre lot area in the
A 1 (Agricultural Conservation) zoning district.
Julius Nemeth, 21566 Highway 169, questioned why the 10 acre restriction was
• established in the first place. He stated that it creates problems for school buses
and snow removal. Mr. Nemeth stated that when it becomes necessary to
iirp,",)14101 \i[j
Steering Committee Minutes age
August 25, 1994
• extend sewer and water, it will be financially impossible for property owners to
pay the costs on even two and one-half acres and suggested a one-acre lot size
minimum.
Steve Ach reviewed the 1987 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, which
included maintaining the semi-rural atmosphere. (See attached excerpt from
1987 Comprehensive Plan.)
Cecilia Scheel stated that she did not feel any of the goals and policies
mentioned by Mr. Ach applied to the northern area, and questioned if there was
any representation for the agricultural community when the 1987 plan was
discussed and adopted.
Committee Member Dick Hinkle explained that when he chaired the Steering
Committee in 1987, he contacted a significant number of people living north of
County Road 33 regarding the 10 acre minimum lot size. These property owners
did not object to the 10 acre minimum and stated that they liked the area as it
was and did not see any reason to develop it further.
Cecilia Scheel expressed her opposition to the extensive government controls
placed on farmers.
Dick Hinkle stated that he opposed the 10 acre minimum lot size, but did not
have the support of the people living in the northern area.
• John Hansen, 22124 Monroe Street, questioned who determines wetlands. He
expressed his concern regarding the impact of wetlands when subdividing
property.
Chairman Minton stated that the DNR and Corps of Engineers determine a
majority of the wetlands.
Committee Member Marlon Glines questioned the group how many were
interested in keeping the 10 acre minimum and how many were in favor of
reducing the size to two and one-half acres. Chairman Minton noted that the
group was split 50-50.
Committee Member Mark Lucas questioned the impact of having 21/2 acre lots
next to 10 acre minimum parcels.
Chairman Minton explained that the advantage of 10 acre parcels is that if city
sewer and water were extended, it would be easier to subdivide 10 acre parcels
than 21/2 acre parcels. He noted what typically happens is homes are placed on
2'/2 lots in such a manner that they cannot be subdivided cost effectively.
Dick Gruys, 22347 Monroe Street, stated that he owns 232 acres in the northern
area. He expressed his opinion that the City should not be proud of the increase
in single family homes because it means more young families with children,
creating a need for more schools. He stated that single family home taxes do not
pay their share for schools. Mr. Gruys explained that he felt the City should be
• promoting industrial development to help pay for schools and services.
� DDO
Steering Committee Minutes
August 25, 1994
• Chairman Minton agreed that it is important point for the City to maintain a good
balance between residential and industrial development.
Pat Dwyer responded that the committee has discussed the importance of
industrial development at an earlier meeting. He also stated that the EDA's
Business Park Task Force has been meeting for the past year to identify industrial
opportunities within the community.
Robert Holland, 21375 Brook Road, stated it was his understanding that the
Federal government made a recommendation quite some time ago that homes
drawing their own water and dissipating sewer not be built on less than two and
one-half acres. Mr. Holland expressed his concern that the Elk Park Center
property contained wetlands.
Steve Ach stated that the State Wetland Preservation Act is designed to
encourage avoiding wetlands; however it also provides for the relocation of a
wetland when it cannot be avoided during development.
Discussion followed regarding the Wetlands Act and enforcement in the City.
Mr. Gruys stated that he was told by the local game warden that if he finds one
cattail on a property, the proper permits must be obtained if you plan to do
anything that would be considered disturbing wetlands.
Marion Nemeth, 21566 Highway 169, expressed her concern as to why the
• government wants all the wetlands. She stated that geese from these wetlands
are destructive in that they pick up the alfalfa and other grain seeds.
Committee Member Chris Kreger stated that the City of Elk River is bound by the
Wetland Preservation Act and strictly enforces it. There were comments from the
audience that there were instances of homes built in wetland areas in the City.
Chairman Minton explained that he could not speak for past actions, but was
also aware that the City strictly enforces the wetlands ordinance at this time.
Mr. Kreger encouraged persons opposing the restrictions in the Wetlands
Preservation Act to contact their state and federal representatives.
Gene Thompson, 22017 Elk Lake Road, expressed his concern the Committee
take measures to preserve the farmland.
Jim Hansen stated that he understands the need to preserve farmland but some
of the land in the agricultural zone is not suitable for farming because of soils.
Mike Fox, 11747 197th Avenue N.W., questioned why the City wanted the property
developed as 10 acre lots, rather than 21/2 acre lots.
Steve Ach stated that there have been studies conducted that indicated larger
tracts of land are easier to develop when sewer and water are extended. The
principal behind this concept is to maintain these larger tracts of land so that
sewer and water can be extended cost effectively.
•
APliED
Steering Committee Minutes Pagel
August 25, 1994
• Mike Fox stated that he felt the City Council and Planning Commission were the
only ones that wanted sewer and water extended to the north area.
Steve Ach stated that the question that needs to be addressed is whether or not
the City plans to extend sewer and water north of the current urban service area.
Mr. Fox stated that he was not in favor of it.
Steve Ach stated that development interest is coming to the area and the
community must choose how they wish to deal with it. He explained that there
can be problems with platting 21/2 acre lots in that the cost effectiveness of
providing services such as snow removal, emergency services, road maintenance
and repair is dramatically reduced.
Discussion followed regarding the present level of services.
Committee Member Dana Anderson stated that he felt the people of Elk River
should have a say in how they want their community to develop. He noted that if
they did not want a large number of people living north of County Road 33 on
10,000 square foot lots, that a 21/2 acre minimum would be a good alternative.
Mr. Anderson suggested that they could also consider "clustering" 1 acre home
sites in a 21/2 acre minimum lot size area, leaving an open area. Mr. Anderson
encouraged citizens to continue to attend these meetings to provide input for
the development of the community. He stated that the purpose of this
committee is to steer that growth.
• At this point, Steve Ach provided a map outlining the designated wetlands in Elk
River.
Committee Member Chris Kreger explained how services were more expensive
having a 21/2 lots versus smaller lots which are typically found in subdivisions with
water and sewer.
Discussion followed regarding park dedication fees when subdividing land. Julius
Nemeth expressed his concern that the fees are too high.
Debbie Turner, 206th Avenue N.W., owner of 31/2 acres, stated that she is in favor
of maintaining the 10 acre minimum lot size and preserving some rural areas in
the City.
Paul Weyman, 19650 212th Avenue N.W., expressed his concern that the
Committee balance the concerns of the citizens regarding the use of their land.
He stated that he bought his property under the assumption that the rural
atmosphere would be maintained. He further stated that he finds the heavy
gravel and mining zone change contradictory to that goal.
Steve Ach stated that in planning for future development, the Steering
Committee must balance the need for future development and the services that
will be demanded while at the same time keeping taxes at a reasonable level.
Dick Hinkle explained his reasons for supporting a 21/2 minimum lot size as
• opposed to the 10 acre minimum. He stated that the change is not going to
in\
ii
Steering Committee Minutes Page 7
August 25, 1994
• force a farmer to stop farming, and the only reason he may be pressured to sell is
if the price of land becomes so high he feels he cannot not afford not to sell it.
At this time, Steve Ach used a map to outline the urban service area. He stated
that the City Council is currently studying the possibility of extending services to
the East Highway 10 corridor, west towards the Courthouse, and ultimately, to the
western border. Steve stated that he did not expect any plans for extending
sewer and water into the northern area to be included in this update of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mike Fox questioned why Outlot A is in the urban service district and the rest of
Brentwood is not. Steve Ach explained that Outlot A could be easily serviced
with City water and sewer at this time and Brentwood could not.
Marlon Glines expressed his opinion that farmers should not be penalized for
maintaining their land as farmland, but that others should be able to develop
their land into two and one-half acre lots if they desired.
Discussion followed regarding the surface water management fee. Chair Minton
stated that issue would need to be discussed with the City Council.
Mr. Froehich expressed his frustration that property owners cannot do what they
want with their own land.
An unidentified resident asked the Committee whether or not the Council could
• rezone the north area to two and one-half acre lots, and leave the farming areas
as they are, without charging them additional taxes for the development around
them. Chair Minton stated that could be a possibility.
Hank Duitsman explained that residents need to consider that approximately 20
percent of taxes are from the City, 60 percent from the School District, and
another 20 percent from the County. He stated that if the lot size change is
made and more children enter the school system, that 60 percent school district
tax may go up for everyone. Mr. Duitsman added that the City is trying to attract
more industrial development.
Committee Member Mary Eberly asked if there was any data available regarding
the impact on demand for services for lot sizes such as 21/2 acre lots versus 10 acre
lots. Steve Ach stated that there studies, however, he did not have them
available at this time.
A resident stated that he feels that the best way to preserve the rural flavor is by
changing the 10 acre lots size minimum to two and one-half acres. He stated
that he felt that would prevent parcels from being split up into 10,000 square foot
lots.
Pat Dwyer expressed his concern that land uses be planned in such a manner so
that incompatible uses are not located next to each other.
Gertie Toth stated that the City needs to attract more business and industry to Elk
• River so that people that live here can also work here. She added that land
gigFEISteering Committee Minutes August 25, 1994
• should be set aside now for industrial, rather than trying to put it next to homes
that are already there.
Committee Member Pat Dwyer noted that the City Council recently adopted a
business park zone in order to provide an area for light industrial development.
Marlon Glines stated that townships just outside of the Elk River area with 21/2 acre
minimum lot sizes are developing at quite a fast pace. He questioned the
residents present whether or not they would be in favor of a lot size of two and
one-half acres if there were no adverse effects on the farmers. A majority of the
people were in favor of this concept. He stated that it has been his experience
that it is possible to have larger lots mixed with smaller lots when development
occurs. He stated that an older home can be remodeled to fit in with new
housing to look like it belongs there. Manly also explained how lots can be
subdivided with a sewer and water overlay, placing a home on the property in
such a way that it can be subdivided later if sewer and water is extended.
A resident asked that the Council take into consideration those residents like
himself who bought ten acres because that is what they wanted, and do not
want to see it changed.
Dick Hinkle explained that when he served on the Anoka Board of Realtors, the
Met Council tried to enforce a 10 acre minimum on local government and HUD
refused to finance anything less than 10 acres in that area. He stated that they
when to Washington D.C. to fight the restriction and won because it wasn't
• legal.
Jerry Jackson, resident on 200th Avenue N.W., expressed his view that he receives
no benefits living in Elk River.
Committee Member Arne Engstrom stated that the County Board voted to open
development to two and one-half acre lots. This does not mean there cannot be
larger lots, only a minimum of two and one-half acres.
Cecilia Scheel agreed with Arne Engstrom that people want to be able to
develop their property if they wish.
Cindy Lowe, resident in Greenhead Acres, expressed her opinion that she would
like to see the lot size remain at 10 acres. She stated that she has a four acre lot
and does not want to receive a huge assessment at some point in the future for
improvements.
Chris Kreger stated that the closer a resident lives to the urban service area, the
sooner those services may come to them. He stated that he sympathized with
residents who purchased 10 acres assuming that it would remain that way, but
they needed to take into consideration that an adjoining neighbor may have an
entirely different opinion. Mr. Kreger stated that it is the Committee's responsibility
to collect the opinions and facts that relate to the area being discussed and then
to determine what is the general feeling of the public. He stated that the
committee will do their best to develop a compromise to satisfy both sides of the
• issue.
Steering Committee Minutes August 25, 1994 PflPIOVED
• Mr. Kreger stated that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to plan for the next 5
years, but it is also intended for the plan to fit into the next 10 to 15 years as well.
Cliff Ibis, 13790 196th Avenue, resident of the Peterson Addition, stated that many
of the residents there fear that the City will plan to extend sewer and water into
their area. He explained they would not be able to afford the cost because they
have two and one-half acre lots, and also, they are currently paying for road
improvements.
Chair Minton thanked the residents for their participation. Hank Duitsman
encouraged anyone with comments or concerns regarding the northern area
direct them to Chair Minton and they would be entered into the record and
reviewed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debbie Kleckner
Recording Secretary
•
•
•
August 25, 1994
Robert Minton, Chair
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
Dear Mr. Minton:
It is my observation that both commercial and residential development in Elk River has
become less sensitive to the environment in recent years. Large wooded areas are being clear-
cut, hilltops are flattened and natural drainage ways are being filled. After the damage, there
does not seem to be any effort to replant or restore. It appears to me that Elk River is doomed
to become flat and barren.
The style and method of development now practiced in Elk River dates back to the
• 1950's. Since a relatively high density is needed to make it successful, it is terribly destructive
in hilly or wooded areas. In many ways the large lot, sprawling development of the 1970's was
better in preserving the natural features of the landscape.
The whole issue of land use in Elk River must totally reconsidered. New ideas should
be brought forward that would require more sensitive development. Land use and building
density should be compatible with contours and vegetation cover rather than geographic location.
I think it is senseless to continue the type of development that makes it necessary to
destroy trees and the land that attracted people here in the first place.
Yours very truly,
r
cp___ •
/7 /
Jim Nystrom
JAN:pq
. ' ' 't__ I '`Lfi k
• ' , -' t - .fr
,t,, ,, L ,,,_ ,,,. ,
i,. 1 p.,,, , - , --: ,
\q ' ' ' .\- t' '\\\Q '
,-,t1,,„ , .; ,,,
' .' ' 0 -- N ,. c '
),,jc. - ,„\s • .. ‘\,
't, ' 1 , , -,
'.1 ' Al \kfi)\ ' ' c,..:S. .- '- 0! ,o 7,);.,)(NI
,.; ,t: , s ,
• 1: s 'e R ,t1'' Q"'L
r
it/ (1v 7)
r
1
I
j ` F
� c
O
•
ty of
1kRiver MEMORANDUM
TO: STEERING COMMITTEE
FROM: STEVEN B. ACH, CITY PLANNER..<0 _
DATE: AUGUST 25, 1994
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS
The next set of meetings will consist of discussing residential development.
As outlined in the introductory meeting with the Steering Committee, the
City has been divided into four areas for the purposes of discussing
residential development. Each of the four areas have been created along
logical boundaries whereby common characteristics apply to each district.
The four districts are as follows:
1. North
• 2.
3. Southwest
Central
4. Southeast
These four planning areas are illustrated on the attached map included in
your packet.
The first area that will be discussed is the north planning area. Once
discussion on this residential area is completed, attention will then be
focused to the southwest area and move eastward through the central area
and finishing with the southeast planning area. The southeast area has been
left for last because it will involve the greatest amount of discussion
regarding the extension of City water and sewer into this area for future
urban development. City Engineer Terry Maurer will present the Steering
Committee at an upcoming meeting with a draft report outlining some of the
options for utility extensions.
INTRODUCTION OF NORTH PLANNING AREA
As mentioned above, each planning area has characteristics and issues that
allow it to be discussed independently of the others. The north planning area
• is different for the following reasons:
P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
Steering Committee Memo Page 2
August 25, 1994
•
• No part of the north planning area is included in the current urban
service area (City water and sewer).
• There are basically two residential zoning districts, Al (Agricultural
Conservation) and Rla (Single Family Residential) with minimum lot
sizes of ten (10) acres and two and one-half(2 1/2) acres, respectively.
• There are no current plans nor is it anticipated that this update of the
comprehensive plan will include any discussion of extending the urban
service area into the north planning area.
Similar to the exercise performed for commercial and industrial, a land use
inventory of the north planning area has been conducted. The following is
some general information describing the planning area.
TOTAL ACRES 15,934 AC
Acres Zoned Al (Agricultural Conservation) 9,266 AC
Acres Zoned Rla (Single Family Residential) 6,332 AC
Acres Zoned ME (Mineral Excavation) 2,173 AC
• Other 336 AC
Total Acres Restricted (i.e., Wetlands) 3,847 AC
Estimated Number of Dwelling Units 1,090
Included in this packet is a copy of the Al and Rla zoning text. Each of these
districts have a statement of purpose describing the intended characteristics
and composition of each district and how it should be developed. Generally
speaking, the north area has a two and one-half acre belt which represents a
transition area from the urban development to the south and the agricultural
area to the north. Because the area is outside of the urban service area and
there are no foreseeable plans to amend that service district line further
north, coupled with the large lot sizes, the north planning area is truly where
the rural lifestyle and be found and preserved in Elk River.
Some issues that may be worth discussing include:
• Is it envisioned the north planning area will ever receive City water and
sewer?
• If it is, what type of development policies should be considered to preserve
the cost effective extension of City utilities?
• • Should the minimum lot sizes of ten (10) acres in the Al and two and one-
half(2 1/2) acres in the Rla be maintained?
memo 8/2 5.s/plan/ste e r
Steering Committee Memo Page 3
August 25, 1994
III • Should the amount of land in the Al and Ria zone remain unchanged or
should one district be increased or decreased in area?
CONCLUSION
Once again, staff will have maps prepared illustrating some of the
information discussed in this memo. It is difficult to reduce these maps down
to a legible form, which prevents us from including them in the packet.
However, if you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, please
feel free to call me and I will be happy to answer your questions.
•
as
f -1I dre
MED Mao 4=11.
MIIIIIIIIIIIIII
TMLLfi
ril
III
memo8/25.s/plan/steer
i , 1 ; .• PLANNING AREAS
1 �i I i 4
_ _� I�i w ' ' ',} v ;
I
1 1 _:
- IL 1 1 I 1h..___, , Hill 1 , --
ag
___--- rigiMill ��� '7i40
- Igl ��_WZAINI I; , NORTH \ I� I re--- i -
Ilu�af �l I I I I II
ii
. � I r' u ' 6� I is � � i �� . 1'
7"'� `
�,r''`� r ,....�' t _ V\- _ ISI 0I\ L-
. •
�r� �,' `=�rsi��M c%.--
- "!.--::%iitaimshoi� ' '„r CENTRALwe ---
be a-
- 41111P4- 'SOUTHWEST _ �1 I
T
fli - -671.0::"5"%"---'.. ..- '- ' Vali j' 1 1 Ng:
_...--- allitliiic.4-1.-,-41,...: __,,..._ ..;.•_...„ . in- - -_-- u.,,,....4„.„...1‘7,gire, mitailw
- Pr-_"---,Kim-v-.. Iv-ay 711111111%•4 ' WW1 ' '' 1.'"---.4
r
i411 ! 111i111 'I1i11‘ 11 11 ! 0!1 11!!19111 ; ii91 i I �' ,_ ) -
! i ! 1 I S ! ! ! ! I ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ! ! I ! ! ! 1 I t 111 � �, j
t ,
,_a\.. SOUTHEAST I i
1 �t I I
�� I I`
��
\� j I =
L
I` � M1
: �� ,, I II
i 'v.. a
• I i —''' * ..,.,N-- J.-.- .3._._
1 R J
r _a �"r—"; . ..6.4'
_ !. 1
a
I
E 14..
i1 'I' : t r .1 T f�"\
•
Demographic Statistics
City of Elk River, Minnesota
1994
•
City of
Elk . River
•
Population Estimates
S City of Elk River
Year Estimate
1960 1,763
1970 2,252 (+27.7%)
1980 6,785 (+201.2%)
1981 - 6,897
1982 7,077
1983 7,214
1984 7,426
1985 7,685
1986 7,951
1987 8,945
1988 9,701
1989
1990 11,14:::
• 1991 11,705
1992 12,223
2000 15,000-18;000
•
Source: U.S. Census, State Demographer's Office, City of Elk River
Population Distribution
S
1990 Total Population 11,143
SEX
Male 5,538
Female 5,605
11,143
AGE (in years)
Under 5 1,032
5-17 2,582
18-20 493
21-24 616
25-44 3,965
45-54 1,086
55-59 307
60-64 252
65-74 404
• 75-84 275
85 and over 131
11,143
Median age
Elk River 28.9 years
Sherburne County 28.6 years
State of Minnesota 32.5 years
• Source: 1990 U.S. Census
•
Housing Units
1990 Total Housing Units 3,887
Percent Owner Occupied 74.5%
Percent Renter Occupied , 25.4%
HOUSING VALUES
Less than $50,000 70
$50,000-99,999 1,559
$100,000-149,999 507
$150,000-199,999 102
$200,000-299,999 29
$300,000 or more 2
Median value $86,000
•
IllSource: 1990 U.S. Census
• Construction Value
Residential
1988-1993
30 1
yJ $24,452,604
25 NM
> :. $17,896,422
Min
A+H $15,781,856 $15,725,504
ig
15
J
•••••••••••••
$11,827,354
$9,736,806
J^tip\tt\: ::ti4S i �':t:%}h:
10
WreE
• 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Commercial/Industrial
1988-1993
15 -/
$9,968,155
10 / $9,505,348'-
nie-
Va
$6,968,178 >`?' '
$4,746,100 }; .r;.:=.>
;}.:x;F:>
: :s' r,
•
$4,185,694
$3,178,258
... >'
^i:�•t: ;yi;
yjt}K?:
i:\`'
:};Lf:Tiijii
• 0
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
New Housing Units
S 1980-1993
Single
Year Family Twin Homes Townhouses Apartments Total
1980 26 0 0 0 26
1981 29 0 22 0 51
1982 30 0 34 0 64
1983 64 2 - 0 0 66
1984 76 4 16 0 96
1985 118 10 14 82 224
1986 149 14 8 126 297
1987 213 14 0 122 349
1988 236 0 20 61 317
1989 198 0 4 56 258
1990 125 8 0 131 264
1991 107 0 4 0 111
1992 107 8 0 23 138
• 1993 122 2 2 53 179
TOTAL 1,600 62 124 654 2,440
Source: City of Elk River
•
• Existing Home Sales
Elk River, Minnesota
1993 1992 1991 1990
Number of homes sold 211 homes 235 homes 238 homes 171 homes
Average listing price $104,899 $98,321 $89,869 $90,398
Average selling price $103,197 $96,094 $88,009 $88,672
Median sale price $100,000 $89,000 $84,900 $84,225
•
III
Source: Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota
1994 ANOKA COUNTY HOME SALES
Comparison: January-June 1993 to January-June 1994
• Current Activity: Single Family Homes
Prepared by: The Anoka County Association of REALTORS®
Jean M. Gage, Director of Public Affairs
This sales recap shows a comparison between First Half Year activity for both 1993 and 1994. The
information is updated monthly, and is provided to you as a service of the Anoka County Association of
REALTORS®.
Median Median
Unit Sales Unit Sales Sold Price Sold Price Average
Jan-June 93 Jan-June 94 thru June 93 thru June 94 Sale Price 94
Andover 254 186 106,142 110,650 120,606
Anoka 98 85 82,900 83,900 85,510
Bethel, East Bethel 89 50 87,900 92,500 92,360
Blaine 289 185 91,000 96,200 102,780
Centerville, Lino Lakes 157 135 109,582 117,900 130,273
Circle Pines, Lexington 47 44 86,900 89,450 105,754
Columbia Heights,
Hilltop 110 87 73,000 74,500 75,324
• Columbus Township,
Linwood Township 66 41 97,250 94,600 98,484
Coon Rapids 468 349 92,900 94,000 100,805
Fridley 90 108 87,000 89,000 94,031
Ham Lake 61 70 98,000 112,250 118,253
Ramsey 146 134 97,800 105,670 1.18,488
St. Francis, Oak Grove,
Burns Twnsp 64 63 93,450 99,500 102,784
Spring Lake Park 91 30 84,900 85,000 89,985
Anoka County 2,030 1,567 91,950 94,300 102,531
i
Elk River 130 103 97,650 98,000 106,444
Big Lake 63 52 76,500 85,900 97,641
Metro Area 16,665 16,521 99,900 103,000 121,164
This information was gathered from the Regional Monthly Sold Book, First Half 1994, of the Multiple Listing
Service ofMinnesota. This information outlines the activities of REALTORS®within the metropolitan area, and
does not account for sales by non-REALTORS.
IIThe Anoka County Association of REALTORS®is "The Voice for Real Estate"representing
over 1,100 members involved in all aspects of the real estate industry. ACAR is the northern metropolitans
largest trade and professional association, representing members in Anoka and Sherburne Counties.
EXCERPT FROM ZONING ORDINANCE
Council for decision. Use determinations shall be based on
substantial similarity to existing use classifications , become
• of future binding force and effect and be maintained on file by
the City Clerk.
900 . 12 PERMITTED, ACCESSORY, AND CONDITIONAL USES BY DISTRICT
1 . FP - Floodplain Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Floodplain Overlay
District shall be as set forth in Section 902 of the Code .
2 . SL - Shoreland Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Shoreland Overlay
District shall be as set forth in Section 904 of the Code.
3 . WSR - Wild and Scenic River Overlay District
Special standards and criteria for the Wild and Scenic River
Overlay District shall be as set forth in Section 906 of the
Code .
if4 . A-1 - Agricultural Conservation District
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE : The Agricultural Conservation District
• is established for the purpose of preserving, promoting,
maintaining, and enhancing the use of land for commercial
agricultural purposes, to prevent scattered and leap frog
nonfarm growth, to protect expenditures for such public
services as roads and road maintenance, and police and fire
protection.
a. Permitted Uses -
i . Agricultural uses (5 acre minimum on unplatted
property)
ii . Public parks , playgrounds and open space
iii . Facilities for flood and erosion control
iv. Horticultural uses
v. Golf courses and Country Clubs
vi . Single family dwellings
vii . Model homes in compliance with Section 900 .20,
Subsection 13
viii .Licensed day-care facilities for 12 or fewer
• children
ix. Permitted home occupations
9 . 16
b. Accessory Uses -
i . Accessory farm structures
• ii . Public shelters and essential services
iii . Garages and sheds including metal skin buildings
iv. Private Recreational Facilities
c. Conditional Uses -
i . Commercial recreational facilities
ii . Campground
iii . Reserved
iv. Feed lots
v. Institutional Uses
vi . Roadside sales stands
vii . Veterinary clinics and kennels
viii .Cemeteries and memorial gardens
• ix. Conditional home occupations
x. Airports
xi . Governmental buildings and facilities
xii . Temporary mobile homes consistent with Section
900 . 20
xiii .Reserved
xiv. Licensed day-care facilities for 13 or more
children in institutional buildings
xv. Agricultural uses (less than 5 acres or if
within a platted area)
xvi . Agricultural accessory structures larger than
2 , 000 square feet ( less than forty (40) acres)
xvii .Nonagricultural accessory structures larger than
1 , 000 square feet or in excess of the maximum
combined square footage
xviii .Additional agricultural accessory structures
( less than 40 acres)
• xix. Additional nonagricultural accessory structures
9 . 17
5 . R-1 - Single Family Residential District
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The Residential Districts are
• established to accomplish the general purposes of this
Ordinance and for the following specific purposes :
a. To preserve living qualities of residential
neighborhoods .
b. To ensure future high quality amenities including,
but not limited to, the provision of adequate light, air,
privacy, and convenience of access to property.
c. To increase convenience and comfort by providing
usable open space and recreation space on or near the
housing units they serve.
d. To prevent additions or alterations of structures
which would damage the character or desirability of
existing residential areas .
e. To protect residential areas, to the extent possible
and appropriate in each area, against unduly heavy motor
vehicle traffic .
f . To encourage a variety and range of dwelling types
and a wide range of population densities with emphasis on
home ownership.
4106 R-la - Single Family Rural Residential
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The Rural Residential District is
intended to allow for a "rural life-style" by permitting
low-density residential development in areas that are marginal
or nonfeasible for agriculture. The R-la district is intended
to be primarily a residential district, but which may also
accommodate agriculture related and accessory uses . This is
the general area of Elk River which is not primarily suited to
farming due to soil conditions, slope, tree cover, and other
physical features better suited for nonfarm housing and related
accessory uses .
R-lb - Single Family - Low Density Residential
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: This district is intended to provide
land for attractive and diverse low-density, single-family
residential development; primarily contain detached,
low-density, single-family residential developments and
low-density planned unit development.
Subdivisions utilizing on-site sewage disposal systems and
private water wells cannot exceed one ( 1) single-family
residence per gross acre . Construction of on site sewage
disposal system shall not be permitted on adjoining lots .
• Streets and other improvements may be temporary in nature as
approved by City Council .
9 . 18
EXCERPT FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
IV-1
1110
IV. RESIDENTIAL PLAN
A. INTRODUCTION
The residential development growth trend is expected to continue beyond the year
2000. The City recognizes a need for orderly development of a variety of residential
opportunities. Orderly development will enhance the opportunity for cost effective
provisions of municipal services.
B. GOALS
The following is a summary of the City's goals and objectives as they relate to residential
development.
• 1. GOAL: Encourage the development of a quality residential community which
retains a semi-rural atmosphere while accommodating growing housing needs.
POLICIES:
• Guide the type and location of development to achieve an orderly develop-
ment pattern consistent with the semi-rural character of the community.
• Continue the low-density residential development pattern through the use of
open space areas and the designation of buffer areas between non-compatible
land uses.
• Encourage a mix in housing opportunities in terms of costs and size while en-
couraging a high degree of architectural and site planning integrity of the City.
• Provide for, in appropriate circumstances, a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) approach which, through the use of site design standards, allows for
compatible residential, commercial, and industrial development.
•
IV-2
• 2. GOAL: Provide and maintain adequate and efficient levels of public services within
the community.
POLICIES:
• Encourage the extension of sewer and water lines only on a cost effective basis
without undue burden to the taxpayer.
• Adhere to an assessment policy for the extension of water and sewer lines to
accommodate new development. The policy shall provide for equitable as-
sessment of the improvement costs while protecting the City's taxpayers and
financial commitment.
• Upgrade all local streets to hard-surface, all-weather roads.
• Require that developers provide roads and utilities to City specifications
before City assumes ownership and maintenance responsibilities.
•Require developers of new residential areas to either dedicate a park or
playground site, or make a payment in lieu of dedication to the City's park
improvement fund.
• • Provide storm sewers (on an assessment basis only) to those areas no longer
adequately drained by natural systems.
3. GOAL: Develop, preserve and protect environmental resources such as wetlands,
water bodies and their shorelines, within the City with respect to open space,
recreational uses, water and air quality and natural ecosystems.
POLICIES:
•Restrict insensitive development of shorelands,wetlands and drainage ways.
• Restrict inappropriate alteration of significant natural contours and soils,and
restrict removal of natural vegetation.
• Preserve natural systems through acquisition, dedication or easements.
• Require that development plans demonstrate a compatibility with natural
features and systems.
• 4. GOAL: Preserve, maintain and/or strengthen the physical and visual qualities
unique to the community.
IV-3
•
POLICIES:
• Reserve through purchase,easement,or dedication public access to wetlands,
lakeshore or other natural preservation areas.
• Work with developers to preserve existing natural open space areas.
• Require that developers provide for buffer area between differing, non-com-
patible land use, whenever possible making use of the natural land charac-
teristics.
5. GOAL: Provide an appropriate,reasonable,and enforceable system of development
controls and implementation programs for the guidance of future land use in the City.
POLICIES:
• Update zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to ensure appropriate
development of residential land throughout the City.
•
6. GOAL: Encourage and promote fair housing throughout the City.
POLICIES:
•Ensure that persons or groups of persons of similar income levels have a wide
range of housing choices available to them, regardless of their race, color,
creed,religion,sex,national origin,marital status,status with regard to public
assistance, or familial status.
• Provide a Fair Housing Statement to all developers who request approvals
from City Hall.
C. CURRENT STATUS
The City's existing land use map displays four residential classifications including
• agricultural, low density residential, medium density residential, and high density
residential. A summary of land use for the respective categories is as follows:
IV-4
• • Slightly or
Severely Restrictive Moderately
• i'v' .s. C- • 'v-
Agricultural 19,560 5,870 acres (30%) 13,925 acres
Low Density 3,100
2,270 acres (73%) 830 acres
Medium Density 2,320
High Density 100 800 acres (34%) 1,520 acres
60 acres (60%) 40 acres
The residential land uses of the land use plan correspond to the zoning designation as
follows (see Table 2-E for more detailed information).
Residential
Land Use Zoning
o Minimum Lot Size
• •s b -S • • ..
-w- . -w- -
Agricultural A-1 Agricultural Conservation
2 1/2 acres
Low Density R-1A Single Family sq. ft.
III 16,000 2 1/2 acres
Medium Density R-1B Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 1 acre
R-1C Single Family 6,500 sq. ft. 8,500 sq. ft.
R-2A Townhouse 3,500 sq. ft.
R-2B Townhouse 3,500 sq. ft.
R-2B Multi-Family 3,000 sq. ft.
High Density R-3 Townhouse 2,000 sq. ft.
R-3 Multi-Family 1,800 sq.
ft.
R-4 Multi-Family 1,600 sq. ft.
•
Of the 2,320 acres of land designated for medium density residential use, 1,520 acres
are considered slightly or moderately restrictive for development. This land could
accommodate approximately 3,420 new housing units when sewered. A substantial I
portion of this land is located in the southwest sector of the City between the Elk River
and the Mississippi River. This area is currently unsewered and housing units are on
minimum one-acre lots.
The low density residential areas consist of approximately 3,100 acres of which 830
acres (25%) are considered slightly or moderately restrictive. However, there are
currently approximately 400 lots on which no development has occurred. This brings
• the total developable acreage to 1,830 acres (59% of the categorical total). Based on
I
Iv-5
this information, the 1°
II650 new housing "' density residential areas could accommodate approximately PProximately
D. PLAN
The following plan for future residential development does
developing pattern of the City. not
provides City Rather, it is intended to significantly alter the
officials effective policies with which to assessgrowth work f in t waywhich
services and quality living environments the residents of EIk Riverdeserve.the levels of
Figure 4-A expect and deserve.
tm illustrates three zones in which the different growth
mapped. Zone 1 is located within the urban service district and calls
development betwe� guidelines have been
.n approximately one-third(1/3)and one-half 1/2) crfosmaller lot
residential development within the boundaries of the urban se
hookup to the water and sewer systems(see Utilities ( �)acre. All fixture
service district l exceptrequirett
area between the Elk River, sties Plan in Chapter IIID)
, County Road 35, Meadowvale Road that
boundary of the City which will require overlay plats for future development.d the westernh
density residential development within Zone 1 will adhere
Multi-family All high
dwelling units within a commercial zone are to be allow zoning requirements.
use basis.
• on a conditional
Residential development in Zone 2
area, will be i 2, containing approximately half of the City's
guided to an average density of one housing land
This area of the City may have municipal unit per two and a half acres.
available to
it tare the next 15-2 a ems, water and sant
Y If these services and the relatedary sewer scosts are extended
will want to subdivide
their parcels. d
through the area, many landowners
Zone 3, the northern third of the City,
is to be regulated so as to provide for large lot,
rural housing and agricultural land
larger parcels and a development densityS� Single familylots
forathe of one unit per ten acre be
be maintainedd
indefinite future Clustering of homesites will be encouraged and can be
ordinances. through the City's planIIed development and conditional use e
This recommendation constitutes a reduction in allowed
ordsity, permit
residential
E. NECESSARY ACTIONS
1. Adopt new land use plan which reflects the elements of this document.
ill. Modify zoning ordinance and map to reflect changes in residential esidential cIassifcations.
IV-6
3. Revise subdivision regulations as necessary to ensure adherence to the City's
• development schedule.
4. Adoption of Utilities Plan and expansion of utilities into Zone 1.
•