Loading...
6.8. & 6.9. SR 03-20-2000;ity of River MEMORANDUM Item#6.8. & 6.9. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Mayor and City Council / Stephen Wensman, Planner ~// March 20, 2000 Request by Frank Madsen for a Rezoning and a Land Use Map Amendment, Public Hearing Case No. LU 00-1 and ZC 00-3 Request Frank Madsen is requesting the following: A. A land use map amendment to remove property from the urban service district. B. A rezoning of his property from Rlc (single family residential) to Rla (single family residential). Mr. Madsen has represented to staff that he wishes to subdivide his property to sell three acres to another party and does not want to connect to City sewer and water. Location 19640 Proctor Road NW, NW ¼ of the NE ¼, Section 28, Township 33, Range 26, Elk River, MN Zoning/Land Use Rlc (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential) Attachments Location / zoning map · Howard R. Green memorandum, dated February 14, 1999 · May 23, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes · Ordinance No.00- · Resolution No. 00- 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Memo to the City Council/LU 00-1, ZC 00-3 March 20, 2000 Page 2 Overview The applicant requests a land use map amendment to remove his 6-acre single- family residential property from the urban service district and a zone change to Rla (single family residential). The property is located on Proctor Ave NW, northeast of the Lafayette Woods entrance on Proctor and just south of the Rla zoning district. The property presently has an on-site septic system and a private well. The adjacent Lafayette Woods development has urban services, but none were extended to the north along Proctor to serve Mr. Madsen's property. In 1995, the Urban Service boundary was expanded primarily to include the Lafayette Woods property. At that time properties not part of the Lafayette Woods development had the option to be excluded from the urban service district. The property to the north of the Madsen's, formerly the Dwyer residence, was excluded while the Madsen property was included in the boundary. Since there are no urban services readily available to serve this property and due to the fact that the applicant had an option to be excluded in 1995, staff is in support of the applicant's request (See the attached Howard R. Green Memorandum). Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve of: A. Resolution 00-__ granting the applicant's request for a land use map amendment to remove property from the urban service district. B. Ordinance Amendment OA 00- to rezone a property from Rlc (Single Family Residential to Rla (Single Family Residential). s:\planning\stevewen\ccmmo\luO0-1 .doc ORDINANCE 00 -__ CITY OF ELK RIVER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ELK RIVER ZONING MAP TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM Rlc, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO Rla, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CASE NO. ZC 00-3 The City Council of the City of Elk River does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The duly adopted Zoning Map of the City of Elk River is hereby amended to rezone the property described as: See Attached Exhibit A Section 2. The rezoning is being approved based on the following findings: 1. THE REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. 2. LITTLE CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO SMALLER PROPERTIES WHEN ZONING SUCH PROPERTIES AND INCLUDING THEM IN THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT. 3. THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT THE R1A ZONING DISTRICT AND PRESENTLY HAS NO URBAN SERVICES. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the date of its publication. Passed and adopted this 20h day of March, 2000 by the City Council of the City of Elk River. ATTEST: Stephanie A. Klinzing, Mayor Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk s:\document\ordinanc\oazc00-3.doc EXHIBIT A EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ EXCEPT SOUTH 450 FEET AND EXCEPT NORTH 250 FEET THEREOF; AND THAT POINT OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ LYING WEST OF CSAH 77 RUNNING IN A NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION THROUGH SAID NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 450 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 250 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT DOC NO. 324987, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 33, RANGE 26, ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA CITY OF ELK RIVER RESOLUTION NO. 00 - A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REMOVE A PROPERTY FROM THE URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT CASE NO. LU 00 - 1 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.355, Subdivision 2, prescribes the procedure for amending the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing February 29, 2000, and recommended approval regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment request for the property generally described as: See Attached Exhibit A and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment request and finds the change to be in general conformance to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River that the Land Use Plan be amended to remove the property as described above from MR (Medium Density Residential) to LR (Low Density Residential). PASSED by the City Council of the City of Elk River this 20th day of March, 2000. Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk s:\document\resoluti\lu00-1.doc EXHIBIT A EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST '~ OF THE NORTHEAST ~ EXCEPT SOUTH 450 FEET AND EXCEPT NORTH 250 FEET THEREOF; AND THAT POINT OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ LYING WEST OF CSAH 77 RUNNING IN A NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION THROUGH SAID NORTHEAST ¼ OF THE NORTHEAST ¼ AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 450 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 250 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT DOC NO. 324987, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 33, RANGE 26, ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA s:\document\ordinanc\oazc00-3.doc City of vet LOCATION MAP oro.o P~kway. P.o. ]~o,,,~90 CASE: LU 00-1 Elk River, MN 55330 N HOward R, Green COmpany CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 14, 2000 File: 809420J-0325 Mr. Steve Wensman City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway PO Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330-0490 RE: FRANK MADSEN PROPERTY REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT Dear Mr. Wensman: As requested, we have reviewed the Frank Madsen property relative to his request to be removed from the urban service district. As you are aware, Mr. Madsen's property is on the west side of Proctor avenue immediately north of Lafayette Woods. I believe the north boundary of Mr. Madsen's property is the northerly end of the urban service district. It is my understanding that his neighbor to the north was originally in the urban service district but had requested to be removed from the urban service district and that was approved. From the standpoint of providing sanitary sewer and water service to Mr. Madsen's property, the water will be relatively easy since there is a 16-inch watermain coming up Proctor Avenue to the entrance to Lafayette Woods where an 8-inch watermain heads west into the development. This watermain could be extended further up Proctor Avenue to serve Mr. Madsen's property. Sanitary sewer would provide a much more difficult issue. The sanitary sewer in Lafayette Woods all flows westerly to the trunk line located in the old railroad bed. Therefore, the closest gravity sanitary sewer to Mr. Madsen's property is in 195th Lane Northwest, approximately 300-feet west of Proctor Avenue. It is unclear whether this sanitary sewer is deep enough to service Mr. Madsen's property, although from the lay of the land it likely would. In order to get it to Mr. Madsen's property, an easement would be needed from Lafayette Woods and then construction would require open cutting of. 195th Lane Northwest t extend it .up to Mr. Madsen's property. Since Mr. Madsen's property is the most northerly in the urban service district and relatively difficult and expensive to service, I would have no problem with removing this piece of property from the urban service district. I believe when the urban service district was first established, consideration was not given to the small pieces of property on the perimeter, but rather the district boundaries followed section lines and plat boundaries as much as possible. O:~PROJ\809420J\0325\ltr 2-14-00 SWensman.doc 1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toil'free 888/368-4389 Mr. Steve Wensman February 14., 2000 Page Two If you have any questions regarding this issue please call. Sincerely, Howard R. Green Company TJM:mw O:~PROJ\809420J\0325\ltr 2-14-00 SWensman.doc Howard R. Green Company CONSULTING ENGINEERS Planning commission M~ ng Minutes ' May 23, 1995 , Terry Maurer, City Engineer, commented on questions and concerns raised the ' public as follows:-"'. ~:. ' -There is'adequate capacity for the sanitary sewer system. A trunk sewer line was ,.,.. extended nodh on the railroad alignment to serve Meadowvale School and was ...... extended nodhedy.to the Meadowvale Heights Addition. Also, the City is in the '~i .' proCess of upgrading the treatment facility to triple its capacity. A development ,., . iikethis Will help pay for it through hookup fees'and service. · ~" J".,,.. ,'4 "? ~¢," ',~" ~.~..:. ~' ,-- _, ,- ,'~,'~,. ~.*"":~. ·-ti ', ~ r, ~.: ~. , ."- . '- .' !::'; ~. .... ,.-;'~'. ,.? .,~'~ Z'. .... ~ ,."' ¢',", , -.: ;/, -Someday the proposed development, will. be connected to the high lev"el water service tower behind the new SAX grocery store. He stated that the Elk River Utilities has indicated they have no plans to put another water tower into service this area for at least five years. There is no cost to the City for a water tower;, it is ,. . paid for by the.users in connection fees and user fees. Booster pumping stations will be built in the development area to provide adequate pressure for service ' and fire protection. This cost will be borne by the developer. ~',, . . -County roads are ~tesigned to carry several thousand cars per day. It is estimated that each lot will generate between 6 - 8 trips per day. This ~. ' development could be estimated to generate between 1,200 - 1,600 tdps per day, divided between the two accesses to the development. 'Less that 1,000 per trips per day would be added to County Road 77 when fully developed. The County is aware that they will need to deal with this traffic in the future, and are ' discussing signalizing the County Road 1 and County Road 77 intersection. -The City has the ability to place restrictions on truck traffic routes When, reviewing gravel mining permits, but this does not control other truck traffic. -There is no cost to a property to be included in the urban service area. It would prevent a property owner from fudher subdividing their property without city sewer and water~ The properties that ore not part of this development ~_m ~d be excluded from the urban service district. -Mailbox locations are determined by the U.S. Post Office and the City has no control. Page 9 -The City may request special enforcement on Proctor to help control the speeding. Commissioners Tacheny and Kreger expressed their support for sidewalks in the development. Discussion followed regarding location of sidewalks. Commissioner Kreger suggested that sidewalks be placed adjacent to the curb on one side of all streets in the development, with the exception of the cul-de- sacs. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the retaining wall on lots abutting the Ridgewood development. Planning Commission k4eef;i?M,nutes . .~.'1 h4ay 23, 1995 Page 8 conservation and results in a tax benefit tc~ the developer, perhaps some type of park dedication fee could be required. Commissioner Minton stated that he would be in favor of an access from the northern streets to the northern trail. , . · Chair Kuester opened the public h~afing'~ - . . ; . _.. . . ..... ,~ ~.'~ Robert Elvem, 19623 Proctor Avenue NW, expressed his concern that there be sidewalks along the main thoroughfares in the development for children walking · to school. He also was concerned abater Increased traffic on Proctor,' Mr. Elveru ': :' ' questioned how water pressure ~ouId be maintained in the development due to the high elevation. · .... Mike Dwyer, 19623 Proctor Avenue NW, 'stated that he owns a lot on the ' northeast comer of the proposed degelopment. He explained that his lot was included in the proposed extension of the urban service boundary and questioned the impact this would have on his property. He further questioned if there are any plans for the 40 acres southeast of the proposed development. He also questioned how a park could be developed with the steep grade of'Outlot A. Finally, he questioned how the area would be serviced by City water. Beverly Putnam, 19571 Proctor Avenue NW, stated that her home is located directly across from the proposed entrance to the development. She expressed concern regarding the increased traffic on Proctor, speeding and trucks traveling Jim Hamilton, 19711 Rush Street, Ridgewood Addition, expressed his concern with the density of the proposed development. He felt it would have a detrimental impact on his properly value. Bob Eiveru, 19623 Proctor Avenue, also expressed his concern for the density of the proposed development, and the affect this many families would have on the traffic problems they are already experiencing. John Boggart, representing the developer, explained that given the proposed 100 foot buffer zone, there would be approximately 150 feet between Mr. Hamilton's rear lot line and a potential neighbor's home to the south. Ran Bastyr, developer, stated that there will also be a drop in elevation between his property and the lots to the south. Mike Dwyer, 19623 Proctor, questioned whether or not his property would be included in the rezoning, since it was included in the extension of the urban service area. Bob Elveru, 19623 Proctor, questioned whether or not the school system would be adequate to handle the number of children coming into this development. He asked if there were other costs to residents that they may not be aware of now. Chair Kuester closed the public hearing.