6.10. - 6.13. SR 03-19-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To: City Council From: Dwight and Jane Kirkeide 11230 173rd Ave. NW Elk River, MN 55330 441-3350 Date: March 19, 2001 Subject: Case No's ZC 001-4, LU 01-03, P 01-06 and CU 01-09 Requests by Scott Powell for Mississippi Ridge Plat Dear Council Members, We own the NE 1/4 of the NE I/4 of section 10, township 32N, range 26W, which is 13 acres between this proposed development and the Mississippi River. It is even with 173rd Ave. on the north and 171st Ave. on the south. Our property is completely within the Wild & Scenic District and will remain so. We intend to remain a Single family-Agricultural use homestead. It is our general belief that people should be allowed to use their property as they wish if their use does not harm others. When the City gives special approval for higher density housing developments it also creates an unfilled need for recreational areas to serve such developments As adjacent property owners, we expect that we will not be asked to fill this need. The Supreme Court of the United States has noted that "this right to exclude others is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.." ( see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994 and Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S., at 176.). The City can easily avoid violating our fights by simply acquiring recreational property from willing sellers. Access from highway 10 to our property is via a cartway established as a public highway 2 rods wide on the south side of the section line between section 2 and section 11. (see Final Town Road Order recorded as instrument no. 167593.). Minnesota Statutes 160.09 Change or Vacation of Local Road, Subd. 3. :"Not to be vacated in certain cases. When a county highway or town road is the only means of access to any property or properties containing an area or combined area of five acres or more, the highway or road shall not be vacated without the consent of the property owner unless other means of access are provided." We have not petitioned for the use of the service drive that is a part of this proposed development and we expect that we will not be taxed for it. We have not petitioned for municipal services and would not benefit from them. In fact connecting to municipal services would cause a great deal of destruction to the natural environment of our property. Because others with large lots have not been required to connect to municipal services, we also expect that we will not be taxed for them.