09-19-1983 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes September 19, 1983 Page Three My second doubt came after the Council had to consider the density of a differ- ent area. My arguement against permitting what the developer requested was the increased traffic such a density increase would have on the side streets, which are wider and straighter than what we have in the present situation. These streets are narrow, curved, and without sidewalks. These two side streets are already used as a short-cut between Highway 10 and Main Street. Both vehicle and pedistrian traffic has to be a factor. Increasing them through multiple housing would dramatically increase the hazard to public safety. It is my understanding that Mr. Piwowar told the Planning Commission his intent was to remodel the existing burnt-out house into a dpulex. He would live upstairs and rent out the downstairs. He also reportedly told the Planning Com- mission there was not any intent to develop the rest of the property. If such were true, then I could see no reason for rezoning the entire area. The Council has the perrogative to ,reZone only a portion of what is asked. My thought then was to suggest rezoning only the portion of land that the house and garage sits upon and set a restriction on the rezoning which would include remodeling the present structure. My third doubt came from a conversation with our City Administrator. He said my suggested restriction on the zone change was not permissible, that rezoning left it open for the owner to do as he wished. Following that conversation I looked at the property again. It occurred to me that if only the area upon which the buildings sit were rezoned, and if the owner changed his mind to build anew, there might possibly be enough area to build two double dwellings. Or, if he decided to sell, the next owner would be free to do th~ same. My fourth doubt came in considering the possible impact on other areas of Elk River. Suppose only a small portion of the area is rezoned and remodeling of the existing house does occur. What we will have done is simply make it possible for an existing family home to be rezoned and turned into a duplex. This city is full of similiar, older houses. It is conceivable that many of these homes could be readily turned into duplexes. The result could be devastating. It leads to absentee ownership, deteriorating property and neighborhoods. Lastly, this particular neighborhood has already been subjected to an inappro- priate spot zoning which has put commercial business in their residential setting. The Council is often reminded in zoning matters that each request must stand on its own merits. In this instance there are few, if any, merits in granting the request. Rezoning would be far more detrimental than it would be beneficial. I feel that this zone change should be denied." Mayor Hinkle opened the public hearing. Mr.. Tom Johnson, 508 Tipton, thanked Councilmember Schuldt for spending time in researching the questions of the zone change request in his neighborhood. Councilmember Gunkel indicated that at first she felt the zone change would be good for the City of Elk River, but after research- ing the area, Councilmember Gunkel indicated that she felt the traffic could cause a problem and therefore, it was her feeling that the zoning should remain R-lc. Councilmember Engstrom indicated that he felt the traffic situation could disrupt a single family residential area and therefore, recommended the zone would remain R-lc. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO DENY THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY MR. WALTER PIWOWAR FOR PROPERTY LCOATED AT 527 TIPTON. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTIN PASSED 4-0.