Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 22 <br />July 15, 2002 <br /> <br /> Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Motin stated that townhomes do not belong in this location. He stated that <br /> the developer has made it clear that he wishes to clear cut the trees in the area. He stated <br /> that townhomes should be near commercial/industrial areas and not leapfrogged around <br /> existing residential. He stated that the Council looks at the area as a whole in terms of <br /> determining mixed uses and not on a plat-by-plat basis. He stated that he is concerned about <br /> traffic issues and due to the limited availability of east to west routes in Elk River, old <br /> County Road 13 is being left open (rather than installing the cul-de-sac that had been <br /> planned earlier). <br /> <br />Councilmember Tveite stated that the primary objective of the R3 zoning district is to act as <br />a buffer. He stated that in this plat there is nothing to buffer, as there are single family <br />homes on each side of this proposed plat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kuester stated that the Council looks at how each plat affects Elk River as a <br />whole and not as an individual plat. She stated that school funding doesn't automatically <br />follow where students go; especially for capital projects. <br /> <br />Mayor I4dinzing stated that changes have been made to the Comprehensive Plan since its <br />inception in order to have more control on the growth of the community. She stated that <br />the R3 zone was created to allow townhomes to act as a buffer. <br /> <br />City Attorney Charlie Wilson stated that the Council should consider the concerns heard on <br />this issue as additional findings for deny the rezoning request. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN MOVED TO DENY THE REZONING FROM <br />R1E AND R1C TO R3 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: <br /> <br />THE CURRENT ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MR <br />(MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL). <br /> <br />2. THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON FOR THE REZONING <br /> REQUEST. <br /> <br />THE PROPOSED REZONING TO R3 IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH <br />THE ADJACENT R1A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING <br />DISTRICT. <br /> <br />0 <br /> <br />THE PROPOSED REZONING TO 1t3 ALLOWS FOR INCREASED <br />HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WHICH WOULD RESULT IN <br />HIGHER GENERATION OF TRAFFIC THAN THE EXISTING <br />ZONING. <br /> <br />THE REZONING WILL RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE <br />SCHOOL DISTRICT BEYOND CITY CONTROL. THE SCHOOL <br />DISTRICT'S PLAN IS BASED ON CURRENT ZONING AND THE <br />INCREASED DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED REZONING <br />WILL BRING ADDITIONAL STUDENTS. <br /> <br /> <br />