Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: Mayor Stephanie Klinzing and <br />Members of the City Council <br /> <br />FROM: Peter K. Beck, City Attorney <br /> <br />RE: Carverwood Hills <br /> <br />DATE: April 28, 2006 <br /> <br />This memorandum is in response to a question raised at the April 17, 2006 City <br />Council meeting regarding the appropriate interpretation of the footnote to Section 30- <br />1581 of the City Code. <br /> <br />Footnote 1 to Section 30-1581 of the City Code reads as follows: <br /> <br />Four lots per 40 acres maximum, with 2'li acre minimum <br />and one curb cut. (Code 1982, S 900.18(1)) <br /> <br />The question is whether this language allows the subdivision of a 53.43 acre <br />parcel into five lots, including four 2.5 acre lots and one 41 acre lot. <br /> <br />Footnote 1 has been in the City Code, I believe, since the first zoning ordinance <br />for the new City of Elk River (following the merger with the town of Elk River) was <br />adopted in 1980. I have always understood its intent to be to maintain the one unit per 10 <br />acre density in the A-I Zoning District, while allowing some flexibility in the <br />configuration of lots within that zoning district. To the best of my knowledge, we have <br />always interpreted this footnote to allow larger parcels to be developed under this <br />language, at the rate of one lot per 10 acres with a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. <br /> <br />Although the footnote is not entirely clear, I believe this is the correct <br />interpretation of the language. As I have advised the Council in the past, zoning <br />ordinances are interpreted by the courts in favor of property owners, and against cities. <br />See Frank's Nursery Sales v. City ofRoseville, 295 N.W.2d 604 (1980). If push came to <br />shove, I believe the courts would interpret footnote 1 to allow five lots per 50, seven lots <br />per 70, etc., consistent with the City's past practice. <br /> <br />If the City Council does not want to allow this type of subdivision in the future, <br />my recommendation is to have staff and the Planning Commission prepare a proposed <br />amendment to Section 30-1581 which would more clearly set forth the Council's intent. <br /> <br />GP:1943I82 vI <br />