|
|
Hearing on Almelund rezoning and lot size reduction request continues Thursday nightBy MaryHelen Swanson This was the proposal before the Chisago County Planning Commission (PC) Feb. 7, and is an issue that is being continued tomorrow night, Feb. 28 at 7 p.m.at the Government Center. The proposal comes from Curtis and Julie Sparks, owners of about 125 acres north, but adjacent to, Almelund city boundaries. With their request to the PC to rezone the property (from agricultural to Rural Residential II) and also change the minimum lot size for single family units, the Sparks would like to create a housing development they say would flow with the historical nature of Almelund, provide housing for new residents as well as for seniors who may want to give up the work and upkeep of their property but who do not want to leave the Almelund area. The Sparks have owned the property since 1979, and since then have planted 30,000 trees on it. They have worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and DNR on land management programs. They would like to create a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of nine two-family residences ringed around a common green, and 31 single-family detached dwellings scattered on single-family lots, for a total of 50 single-family dwellings. The townhouses, they say, would be designed with seniors in mind - low maintenance. The PUD would be serviced by an off-site sewage treatment system. A woodlot would be left intact along the north side of the property, as well as the farm fields along the west perimeter. According to Sparks, when the final layout is complete, anywhere from 60-75 percent of the 125 acres will be left as open space. And the Sparks say they will seek perpetual land preservation for this open space. Environmental Services Director Marion Heemsbergen had pointed out at the Feb. 7 PC meeting that the request for lot size reduction is quite significant, considering that the present zoning ordinance provides for an ìUrban Residentialî zoning district with a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum, if lots are connected to public sewer. The Sparks request is for lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft. Questions from these people centered on sewer design and wastewater handling. Others were concerned about light pollution, preservation of the value system in the community, impact on property values, impact on roads, traffic, the safety of area residents and demand on public services such as police and fire. Still others expressed concern for the character of the new development and the change it would make in the character of Almelund, from rural to urban. Other concerns were what the large influx of additional residents would do to the area and the precedent this would set for the rest of the county. At the PC meeting, Amador Town supervisors Bill Riley, Ray Johnson and Bruce Pederson were in favor of the proposal as opposed to recent uncontrolled, unplanned growth throughout the county. Riley felt that the township could take steps to see that the PUDís interior roads connect with the existing town streets to provide the connectivity to the town that Heemsbergen would like to see. Ray Johnson commented that he finds the proposal to have ìrhyme and reasonî and thinks it is orderly. He said he thinks it could add to and enhance the community. But some of the residents on hand for the PC meeting earlier this month had ìmixed feelingsî about the proposal. One said this could offer valuable housing opportunities for senior citizens who could remain in their communities . An Almelund businessman, looking at both sides of the argument, said he felt the town needed new life. He reminded everyone that Almelund once was a bustling rural village with many thriving businesses. He said it is a struggle today for the five remaining businesses to stay alive and he didnít want to see the town of Almelund die. On Thursday night, the PC may decide if the rezoning and ordinance amendment requests are extensions of county policy providing for orderly growth of an existing town, or if this would be creating a brand new entity. Because the item was tabled to the Feb. 28 meeting, public comment should still be allowed at that meeting. ©ECM Post Review |