Loading...
3.3. SR 09-20-1999 A.! ~\.( ( II eity of ~I Elli River ** Item # 3.3. ** MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Scott Harlicker, Senior Plan~- September 20, 1999 DATE: SUBJECT: Request by Arnold and Margaret Barsody To Amend Subdivision Ordinance, Public Hearing Case No. OA 99-14 The Mayor, after speaking with the Barsody's, has requested this item be tabled indefinitely. The Barsody's will be exploring other alternatives but would like to keep this option open. Attached for the Council's information is the staff report regarding the proposed amendment. . . s: \PLANNING\SCOTT\OA9914PP.DOC 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330. TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 . Reauest Consider a request by Arnold and Margaret Barsody to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to allow, under certain conditions, a one time exemption to the lot size and dimensional requirements in the Al district. Attachments . Minutes of 7/19/99 City Council meeting . Minutes of 8/24/99 Planning Commission meeting . Memo from Mayor to City Council dated 7/19/99 . Letter from Arlene Mootz, dated 8/19/99 . Location map of Barsody property . Proposed amendment Overview The Barsodys own an 11.6 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. Proposed Amendment and Criteria In order to accommodate the Barsodys, staff has drafted the attached amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow property owners that met certain criteria a one-time exemption from the lot area and dimensional requirements in the A-I District. The following are suggested criteria: . Are zoned agricultural (A-I) In other areas of the city, smaller lot sizes are already permitted. . . Have been homesteaded and have not been previously subdivided since October 31, 1977. October 31, 1977 is the date the Elk River Township and City consolidated. This criterion is intended to limit applicability to . residential property and residents that have not recently subdivided their property. . Are at least 11 acres in size and smaller than 20 acres. The amendment is intended to provide relief for those property owners that would not be able to subdivide their property without a variance (lots at least 11 acres but less than 20). With lots less than 11 acres, subdividing them would create 2 non-conforming lots. Generally at least 1 acre is needed to provide adequate area for well and septic. Lots 20 acres and larger can be subdivided under the density option. . The remnant parcel, which shall be considered the lot that contains the original homestead, shall be 10 acres in size. This criterion is to ensure that at least one of the lots meets the minimum lot size requirement. In certain situations, as in the Barsody case, it may allow for a lot size as small as 1% acre. If the original parcel is larger, say 15 acres, the new lot will be larger, 5 acres for the new lot and 10 acres for the remnant. . . Structures on both the new lot and the remnant parcel shall meet the setback requirements for the A-I district. The purpose of this criterion is to minimize the impact on adjacent lots and ensure sufficient separation between structures on adjoining lots. Since the property owner is creating a new lot, they will have to go through the administrative subdivision process. As part of the review process staff will consider access, impact on adjacent properties, suitability for well and septic, environmental concerns such as wetland impacts, and engineering issues such as grading and drainage. The proposed amendment could affect 24 parcels in the city. The number may be less depending on how long the parcel has been homesteaded and if it was subdivided since 1977. Should this amendment be approved, staff will be working with the City Attorney regarding what type of documentation will be needed to verify length of homestead and whether the parcel was previously subdivided. Planninll Commission . The Planning Commission considered this request at their August 24th meeting. At that meeting 8 people spoke at the public hearing; one represented the Minnesota Council on Aging. The representative for the Council on Aging spoke regarding the aging population and the need for society to accommodate older residents. Seven residents also spoke; 5 spoke . . . against the proposed ordinance and two spoke in favor of it. Their comments are included in the attached minutes from the August 24th Planning Commission meeting. The Mayor was also in attendance and spoke in favor of the ordinance amendment. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended denial of the amendment. The Commission felt the aging issue was outside the purview of the Commission and the proposed amendment would open the door for other requests for smaller lots. Other Considerations Approval of this amendment may open the door to a policy discussion regarding the future of the A-I, Agricultural District. The Council may experience other property owners in the same district asking why they cannot be allowed similar consideration; why are these property owners granted this option. After initial discussions with the Mayor, the proposed amendment included an ownership criterion. The City Attorney reviewed the amendment and recommended the ownership criterion by eliminated because of legal concerns. Elk River City Council Minutes Julv 19. 1999 Page 5 . The City Council recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m. 5. Open Mike No one appeared for this item. 5.1. (1.1.) Subdivision Ordinance Discussion Mayor Klinzing indicated that she has requested staff to research a possible amendment to the subdivision ordinance to allow, under certain conditions, the splitting off of a 2.5 acre lot in the ten acre minimum agricultural district. She . noted that Arnold and Margaret Barsody have requested to subdivide an 11.5 acre parcel on Brook Road into a 9. acre lot and a 2.5 acre lot to allow the 2.5 acre lot as a homestead for their daughter. She stated that the Barsody's desire to create a family support system that will allow their daughter to live near them to assist them during their aging process. It was the consensus of the council that it would be willing to consider an ordinance amendment however, it was also the consensus that this may not be the best alternative and concern was expressed that it could set a precedent for property owners north of County Road 33. 6.1. Reauest bv Citv of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 2, Add Section 215 Establishina Heritaae PreseNation Commission, Public Hearina Case No. OA 99-6 . Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Rohlf reviewed the staff reports on' items 6.1 - 6.4a. All items related to the creation of a Heritage PreseNation Commission and a Heritage PreseNation Site Overlay Zoning District. Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearings for items 6.1 - 6.4. Kurt Kragness. director of the Sherburne County Historical Society, stated that he is in favor of creating a Heritage PreseNation Commission. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Rohlf requested the council to adopt resolutions to allow summary publications of the ordinance establishing a heritage commission and the ordinance establishing a heritage preseNation site overlay zoning district. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 99-23 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER CODE OF ORDINANCES ENTITLED "THE COUNCIL" BY ADDING SECTION 215 ESTABLISHING A HERITAGE PRESERVATIOr;.l COMMISSION. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. . I . . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 24. 1999 Page 13 20. THAT THE DEVELOPER OBTAIN CONTROL OF THE OUTLOT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS AT LANDER STREET. 21. PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE DEVELOPER RETAIN A SURVEYOR TO INVENTORY THE TREES ON THE WESTERN BORDER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 1, ILLUSTRATE THE TREES ON THE GRADING PLAN, AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REVISIONS TO THE GRADING PLAN TO PROTECT THOSE TREES. PRIOR TO GRADING, THE DEVELOPER SHALL VISUALLY SHOWN IN THE FIELD THE LINE BEYOND WHICH GRADING SHALL NOT OCCUR AND SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE TREES. 22. THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHALL BE 20 FEET. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Chair Cote opposed. 6.8. Reauest bY City of Elk River for Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. Public Hearina Case No. OA 99-14 Staff report by Scott Harlicker: In response to a request by Arnold and Margaret Barsody, staff has drafted an ordinance amendment to allow property owners that meet certain criteria a one-time exemption from the lot area and dimensional requirements in the A-1 District. Mr. Harlicker reviewed the criteria and requirements. He noted that the city attorney has advised them that tying an ordinance to the length of ownership would not be enforceable. Chair Cote opened the public hearing. stephanie Klinzing, Mayor, 10511 209th Avenue NW, explained the Barsody's wish to have their daughter live close to their home. Mayor Klinzing also spoke regarding residents'concerns in the A 1 zoning district associated with the consolidation of the township in 1977. Mayor Klinzing stated that only 23 property owners in the city would possibly meet the criteria to utilize the proposed ordinance amendment. Lynn Roman, representative of the Minnesota Council on Aging, spoke regarding demands for senior housing and health care which will be experienced with the agining of the "Baby Boomer" generation. She felt the two main issues will be housing and care giver support. Ms. Roman stated that the vast majority of the care will be given by adult children and families of the aging. She stressed the importance of accessibility and choice and felt that the Barsody's request was reasonable. Ed Hunt, 21777 Olson Street, expressed his concerns regarding his situation of not being able to split his property which is located on a private road easement. Mr. Hunt discussed "grandfathering" issues related to the consolidation of the township and city. He stated he felt that individual land owners should be treated with the same fairness as large developers. Norm Lemon, 11216 Brook Road, stated that he felt property owners should have the right to split their property. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 24. 1999 Page 14 Peggy Bode, 10700 Brood Road, stated that she felt the ordinance amendment was actually a variance and was concemed that if the city makes an allowance for the Barsodys, other requests will follow. Kermit Bode, 10700 Brook Road, stated his concern that the date for exemption from the lot size requirements may not be legally enforceable. Rick Wynn, 21587 Brook RoaCl, expressed his opposition to the amendment. Joyce Hels, 9731 221st Avenue, expressed her opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment. She felt that the letter she received from Mayor Klinzing regarding the issue was based on emotions and was seeking sympathy to the Barsodys. Ms. Hels felt the ordinance amendment would not be positive and sound for the city and its growth issues. She questioned what assurances the city would have that the property would be kept in the family. Laura Wlnn, 21578 Brook Road, stated she would like the zoning to remain as it is currently. Cheryl Froelich, 9797 213th Avenue, was not able to speak on this issue, but will be providing written comments. A resident from the audience stated he did not believe that aging should have anything to do with zoning. He felt that in order to care for aging parents, a person would need to live in the same home, not down the road. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Cote closed the public hearing. Chair Cote stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is a land use issue, and that he felt aging was a social issue which the City Council will need to address. Commissioner Schuster stated he did not support the ordinance amendment and felt it would open the door for other requests for smaller lot sizes in the A 1 district. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A ONE-TIME EXEMPTION FROM THE LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE A-1 DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. OA 99-14. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 7. Other Business 6.1. Update on 8/16/99 City Council Meeting bv Commissioner Kuester ..- Commissioner Kuester provided a report on planning issues reviewed at the August 16. 1999, City Council meeting. Monday, July 19, 1999 . TO: Council members .... . ~ . .... ... ~~M: ~yor Stephanie K1inzin~ RE: Proposed subdivision ordinance amendment '.. ... I +~y~ckJ- . .' .,.. ~s ~e 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 som.eone owning 20 acres and more. This would only effect property owners with between Gd 19 ~ > 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 of the city's "long- time," aging homeowners. . . .. . August 19,1999 Arlene Mootz 10213 - 209th Avenue NW Elk River MN 55330 Planning Commission City of Elk River 13065 Orono Road Elk River MN 55330 \~ ,~ ~~~ Re: Planning Commission Hearing August 24, 1999 Case No. OA 99-14 "...to allow a one-time variance to the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements for single-family residential lots in the A1 (agricultural) zoning district..." Thank you to Michele McPherson for her telephone explanation. I hope this letter can be taken into account as you have this debate. As I understand it there are two criteria for this: The property in question must be over 10 acres and less than 20 acres, and you must have continuously owned and homesteaded the property since 1977. ~he situation in question is where someone meets these two criteria and wishes to split off a small parcel of less than 10 acres. The particular circumstance that brings this up is where an elderly couple wishes to split off a lot for their daughter to build a home, the reasoning being that she will be close to help them in their older years. In our case we meet all of the criteria except that we have not continuously owned our property since 1977, even though it has been homesteaded since that time. Also, I can relate to the reasoning being used as I have an 89 year old father. If this is approved there will be many people such as myself who may come to you for expansion of this idea. If you take exceptional actions for one, I have a right to expect that you would do the same for me. I would even use the same reasoning, i.e. I must have my father near me even though his wish is to have his own residence. I know there are other options for senior care and housing. My father lives in a senior high-rise in Anoka. He does well in his own residence but I need to drive there several times a week to help him take care of personal and household responsibilities and to make sure of his health and well-being. I'm in quite the same position as the people in this case. . . While I understand and sympathize with this family, there are other 4It ways to deal with aging parents other than asking for extraordinary changes to the zoning laws. I am not really opposing this request, however it seems a better idea _to keep zoning" laws clean and clear. Sincerely, ~7/l~. cc: Mayor Stephanie Klinzing Council Member Daryl Thompson 4It 4It ~~ ~ ~- v \ \ /.~ \ Barsody Property l Il 1~f:: t.E s L J. C lC II J: ::::::::::::' (A1) a. a - :~{~~~:r:~ / ~'_.- ~ \ :. \. \ .-:~ ~...... I~ ,,- \ ,~ ..-~ -. (A1) i ....... ... . I >~ ~ \1\/. ~ ~ /L..-- - 1 I \ I r- \ I 1 _ __ /-'IMil1l) - ,- -'" ,ot ,. ! w 12 - ~ ~~ ~:V~ t.E ~ _ t.E (A1) TI (' CJ _ .. /ILl' ~ }I J: I. r \ \ ",~r. A1 (/ ~~ ~... ,-... i ~~ ~U ++ I _1__ I I (12) 1: __ - II 1111 }I1LL ~ --,~ ~' ! ~ i 1- 1 - i- I-I ~. _ ...12 f--- '~I ~l""~ V ~ ~ - f\i -.., .1 -\ aU i" . } ~/ ~~ AI -'-( ( II ~11l River LOCATION MAP' N 13065 Orono Parkway. P.O. Box 490 Elk River. MN 55330 CASE: oA 'let-I&f . . . 1008.25 - Exemption to Lot Size Requirements for Homesteads Built Prior to October 31. 1977 A. Purpose The City recognizes that certain parcels and lands were divided and developed prior to the consolidation of the Township of Elk River and the City of Elk River and that certain residents are burdened with parcels of land to large for a normal homestead but to small to create a viable agricultural unit. In order to alleviate the burden some residents face because of the size of their parcel and their long time ownership of that property, the City of Elk River created this one time exemption to the lot size and dimensional requirements for properties that meet specific criteria. 1. Parcels of land which meet the following criteria shall be eligible for this one time exemption to the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements: A. Are at least 11 acres in size and smaller than 20 acres. B. Are zoned agricultural (A-I). C. Have been homesteaded and have not been previously subdivided since October 31, 1977. D. The remnant parcel, which shall be considered the lot that contains the original homestead, shall be 10 acres in size. E. Structures on both the new lot and the remnant parcel shall meet the setback requirements for the A-I district. 2. All requests for exemption under this Section shall comply with the requirements and procedures found in Section 1008.08 (2) Administrative Subdivision.