7.1. SR 07-19-1999
rei ---\)
( );
4ffl}{
Item # 7. 1 .
River
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council )j /'
Scott Harlicker. Senior Planne~ .
July 19, 1999
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Possible Amendment to Subdivision
Ordinance
The Mayor, on behalf of Arnold and Margret Barsody, has requested that
staff research a possible amendment to the subdivision ordinance to allow
them to split off a 2.5 acre lot in the Agricultural District (10 acre minimum
lot size).
.
The Barsodys own an 11.5 acre parcel on Brook Road (County Road 21) and
would like to subdivide the property into a 2.5 acre lot and a 9 acre lot. The
2.5 acre lot would be used as a homestead for their daughter and the 9 acre
parcel would contain the existing home and accessory buildings.
The minimum lot size in this district is 10 acres unless the property is
developed under the 4 lots per 40 acres density option. The density option
allows smaller lots, down to 2.5 acre minimum, provided the density of the
plat does not exceed 4 lots per 40 acres. However, the Barsodys do not have
adequate acreage to qualify for the density option. The minimum parcel size
needed to qualify for this option is 20 acres.
The Barsodys could apply for a variance to the minimum lot size. However,
variances are difficult to grant and would require, among other things, the
applicant to show the literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undo
hardship. Staff would also likely recommend denial of any variance request
as it is inconsistent with both the intent of the agricultural district and the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Action Requested
.
Staff is seeking feedback from the Council regarding this request. The
Barsodys have not made a formal request and staff would like some direction
from the Council prior to accepting the Barsodys application and application
fee.
S:\PLANNING\SCOTT\BARSODY.DOC
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
.
.
.
Monday, July 19, 1999
TO: Council members
~ .1 J-
~.~/ /NJ-iZ'V
FROM: Mayor Stephanie Klinzi~~j .
\J
RE: Proposed subdivision ordinance amendment
This issue came to my attention shortly after my election as mayor last year. Margaret
and Arnold Barsody, whom I have known for many years, contacted me and told me of their
daughter's desire to build a house on a portion of the 11.5 acres they own along Brook Road
(County Road 21).
I agreed to ask city staff to meet with them and begin research into a possible subdivision
ordinance amendment that would satisfy their's and their daughter's needs. Scott Harlicker did
meet with the Barsody's and also talked with me several times about the matter. He has since
discovered an ordinance in another city (I believe it is Maple Grove) that would fit the Barsody's
situation. He has submitted a proposed ordinance amendment to the city attorney for review. My
understanding is that the amendment has met with Peter Beck's approval as far as legality.
The Barsody's have lived in Elk River all their lives. They previously owned more land
than the 11.5 acres on which they currently live. The larger portion of their land, however, was
sold by them several years ago. They want to separate a two and one-half acre parcel from their
remaining acreage to provide a building site for their youngest daughter and her husband (they
are newly married).
The Barsody's want to have their daughter and her family close to them since they are (as
we all are) aging and feel that the close proximity will give them support and allow them to stay
in their home longer than without that support. Also they believe that the closeness of distance
with allow them to help their daughter and her husband in whatever way they can.
I am very much aware that the proposed subdivision amendment is not compatible with
what land use experts would consider "sound zoning" rules. At the same time, however, I believe
that the Barsody' s desires to create a family support system that will benefit them (and society as
a whole) by providing a chance for them to remain independent for a longer period of time far
outweighs any "sound zoning" concerns. Their independence could save taxpayers thousands of
dollars if, by having their daughter's help, the Barsodys need of government-supported assis-
tance - home health aid, nursing home, etc. - were delayed or eliminated.
The provisions of the proposed ordinance amendment can be stated narrowly to fit the
Barsody's needs and not intrude too much on the city's intent to control urban sprawl. There are
other property owners who would meet the requirements of the proposed subdivision amendment
but their number is minimal. The impact on the density within the Al zone would also be mini-
mal. There are already provisions for two and one-half acre splits for someone owning 20 acres
and more. This would only effect property owners with between 11 and 19 acres.
The proposed subdivision amendment would have a "historical" provisions which would
limit it to residents who have owned the property for longer than 20 years. The Barsody's have
owned this property for more than 50 years, which puts that ownership well before the advent of
city subdivision ordinances. Other property owners who would qualify under the proposed
amendment would also have to be "long-time" residents.
I believe this proposed subdivision amendment is, simply, the right thing to do. It not
only addresses the Barsody's needs but also, in a limited way, the needs ofthe city's "long-
time," aging homeowners.