09-19-1983 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes September 19, 1983 Page Two several concerns were raised regarding the change from the current classification of R-1c to any multiple classification and whether it would be compatible for the neighborhood. The City Administrator further indicated that there also were concerns regarding traffic in and around the subject property area. The City Administrator indicated that roadways on either side of the property are narrow and poorly designed, and further indicated that if a zone change were granted, Mr. Piwowarwould be able to place up to eight density units per acre on the property, as opposed to five density units in the current R-1c zoning classification. The City Administrator indicated that the City Council must determine whether the re- zoning would be compatible with the neighborhood. The City Administrator further indicated that residents tn the area have expressed their opposition to any zone change. Councilmember Schuldt read the following statement expressing his views on the zone change: "First of all, I owe an apology to Mr. Piwowar. When his R-3 zone request came before the Council previously, I virtually assured him that an R-2 zoning would be acceptable. Mr. investigation into this matter tells me those comments were pre- mature and I was wrong in making them. Rezoning an area is a difficult question in most cases. Rarely is it a cut-and- dried matter. With a rezoning request there are two aspects to consider: 1) what is best for the City of Elk River, and 2) what is best for the affected area. The area in this matter has been thru the rezoning process twice before in recent times. It is tough for these people to accept a departure from what has been an acceptable status quo. To their credit, they have been vocal, but they have also been patient. In two previous cases, vacant lots were rezoned from R-1 to R-2. I feel they were appropriate changes in that there was not sufficient arguement to deny them. Neither of the two previous changes were in the heart of the neighborhood, both were on the fringe and located on a main thoroughfare - Main Street. Any possi- ble increase of vehicle and pedestrian traffic or population density should not adversely affect the neighborhood. Although the site of this present rezone re- request is within a block and a half distance from the previous two, there are some very great differences to consider. Most of the land is vacant and there is a burned out, older, two-story house near the northern edge. My first reaction to an R-2 zone was favorable. A two-family dwelling is far more acceptable than apartment houses, town houses or condominiums. In this location I foresaw perhaps four double dwellings, two on each side street, and I did not see any great drawbacks. Now I have doubts. My first doubt came after a conversation with our Building Inspector. He told me the land area could conceivable hold eight double dwellings, which would mean sixteen families. As an R-le; the area could conceivable hold eleven single family dwellings. Even with the totals reduced because of setback requirements, the double homes would still increase the neighborhood population a third more than sipgle homes. This would be an incompatible land use, considering the general character of the neighborhood.