HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. MUSA Expansion and Utility ExtensionEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Work Session: February 13, 2017
AGENDA ITEM: MUSA Expansion and Utility Extension AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director, Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 2.c.
ATTACHMENTS: Ultimate Development Water and Sanitary
Sewer Maps, Comprehensive Plan Excerpt APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Item
SUMMARY
At several meetings last year, the Council received information from SKB Environmental about the
Enerkem project and also from staff regarding issues associated with the project. Prior to the end of the
year, SKB notified the City that they were exploring other location options for the Enerkem project. They
did indicate they would continue discussions about the other uses they would like to introduce on the site,
namely additional recycling facilities and a maintenance building.
Staff has received an application for these uses, which will be processed through the appropriate planning
process. However, the application continues to raise the issue about public utility services to the site. Any
project on the site needs an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as the site is not located within the
current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The site is in the 2030 MUSA, and does not readily have
services to the site. In January 2016 when the Council took action on the rezoning of the most western
portion of the site, it was indicated that the site did not have utilities and that extension of public utilities will
need to be reviewed as part of the future PUD plan submittals. The issue of utility extension was also raised
during the Enerkem discussions, although was somewhat overshadowed by the other project issues. With
the new application for the recycling and maintenance facilities, the issue of provision of public utilities, and
the modification to the Comprehensive Plan continues to be at issue.
DISCUSSION
Presently the site is adjacent to the landfill site, to the east. The landfill and lands to the west are located
within the 2020 MUSA. The site and further to the east and south are located in the 2030 MUSA. Extension
of utilities would be needed to permit urban development, which has cost implications for the City. The East
Side Utility study indicates how sewer and water would be brought to the site. The water is less at issue since
there is a 12” watermain near the entrance to the landfill site. A 16” line should be extended along Hwy 55
to bring water to the entire property, including Phase I, and extended all the way to the intersection of
42/55. A 16” watermain will also be placed within County Road 42, creating a looped water main system
which is desirable for redundancy and system pressure.
Sanitary sewer is not necessarily in the vicinity of the Phase I parcel. A new system will need to be installed,
2
generally located along County Road 42, with lift station, to bring sewage to the abandoned treatment plant
site. From the lift station, the main would be extended east and north to access the Phase I property. As
estimated, based upon the cost estimates from the Plan, the cost to bring sanitary sewer to the site would be
approximately 6.5 million dollars.
The above indicates the physical and financial impediments to bringing public utilities to the site. However,
staff would like to have the Council discuss policy implications associated with the project request. The
Comprehensive Plan outlines where public infrastructure will be installed and what the anticipated timing of
the installation is. The question of whether a site should be developed prior to installation of public utilities
is something the City wrestles with often. Typically, the City doesn’t have the option of providing utilities to
sites out of sequence due to costs of installation and often long term operating costs. For example, the
owner of the Cliff property, immediately north of the McMenomy property, has indicated a desire to
develop. However, should the City extend utilities now to the Cliff property an additional lift station would
need to be added increasing capital and operating system costs. We have also received interest in residential
development south of Bonaire Path, east of the rail line. The property owner most interested is the one most
south, and therefore does not have access to City services as yet. Bringing services into the site would
increase costs which are typically borne by the developer. In the Business Park, utilities had been extended to
the south, with some contribution by the western property owner, who wanted to market their property for
development. Without the utility and road extension, the property would not have been developable. In
other cases the City has extended the services and assessed benefiting properties. Recently, property owners
on the west side of Bacardi Avenue were assessed when public services were installed to facilitate the Bella
Vista residential development
The Comprehensive Plan’s land use plan indicates that minimum requirements for Business Park (2/3 of the
SKB site) be “within the MUSA and with an improved access to a collector and/or arterial road to serve the
district.” The utility section in the Land Use section for the Business Park and General Industrial both have
similar language: “Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be
permitted as an interim system before municipal water and sanitary sewer are available provided an
appropriate septic area is located and infrastructure is installed to connect to when utilities are at the
development’s boundary.” In discussions with the City Attorney, it was indicated that requiring connection
to the City public utilities when available and payment of trunk area charges would be a reasonable condition
of approval, should development be allowed prior to bringing city services to the site. However, as in all
enforcement of conditions of approval, if the property owner does not voluntarily comply, the city may have
to take the owner to court to achieve compliance.
Based upon recent information, the SKB project proposes use of a holding tank until such time as public
services are provided to the site. This approach is inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance which notes
that holding tanks are permitted if “after it can be shown conclusively by the property owner that an SSTS
(septic system) permitted under this chapter cannot be feasibly installed:
• As a replacement for an existing failing SSTS;
• For an SSTS that poses an imminent threat to public health or safety; or
• For use with buildings with limited water use. “
Further, the ordinance also requires that lots created after January 23, 1996 must have a minimum of two
soil treatment and dispersal areas that can support Type 1 SSTS. Therefore, regardless of whether the lot was
created prior to 1996, development outside of the MUSA must be developed to accommodate a septic
system.
From a policy standpoint, the question is whether the City will deny development until public utilities are
available. The City has a history of not approving urban residential development until utilities are available.
3
The question is whether that same policy would be instituted for commercial or industrial development. At a
minimum, any development that would be permitted without public utilities should have a septic system;
have a condition of approval that requires hook-up to public utilities when available to the site, including
payment of trunk utility fees; and the use should not be a high water user.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests the Council make a policy decision on the potential for commercial and industrial
development without City services. The situation with the SKB site is unique because it is in the future
MUSA, but being in the 2030 MUSA indicates the City was not prepared to provide utilities immediately
upon purchase. Typically the City has not allowed development to occur within designated MUSA areas until
public utilities have been brought to the site. Should the Council wish to consider development without
utilities, which is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan process of staging orderly development, staff will
work with applicants to provide development opportunities with on-site systems.
SKB
SKB