7.1. SR 07-19-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 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.