Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I\1El\1 0 R4.....Nl) Ul\1 <br /> <br />TO: J\1ayor Stephanie Klinzing and <br />Members of the City' Council <br /> <br />FROI\1: Peter K. Beck, Cit), ...t\ttome)T <br /> <br />RE: CarvefV\iood Hills <br /> <br />D~.\.TE: April 28, 2006 <br /> <br />This memorandum is in response to a question raised at the l~..pril17, 2006 Cit)i <br />Council meeting regarding the appropriate interpretation of the footnote to Section 30- <br />1581 of the Cit), Code. <br /> <br />Footnote 1 to Section 30-1581 of the Cit), Code reads as follo'\vs: <br /> <br />Four lots per 40 acres maximum, \vith 2 ~ acre minimum <br />and one curb cut. (Code 1982, 9 900.18(1)) <br /> <br />The question is \\Thether this language allows the subdi\Tision of a 53.43 acre <br />parcel into fi\ie lots, including four 2.5 acre lots and one 41 acre lot. <br /> <br />F oatnote 1 has been in the Cit)r Code, I belie\re, since the first zoning ordinance <br />for the neVi Cit)r of Elk Riv"er (follo\\ring the merger \:vith the to\\/TI afElk Ri\rer) was <br />adopted in 1980. I ha\'e al\1\ia)Ts understood its intent to be to maintain the one unit per 10 <br />acre density in the ./\-1 Zoning District, \vhile allovling some flexibility in the <br />configuration of lots \J\Tithin that zoning district. To the best of my ImoV\rledge~ \ve have <br />al\Ala)Ts interpreted this footnote to allow larger parcels to be developed under this <br />language, at the rate of one lot per 10 acres \vith a 2.5 acre minimum lot size. <br /> <br />.Although the footnote is not entirel)' clear, I belie've this is the correct <br />interpretation of the language. ~L\.s I ha\ie ad\iised the COlll1cil in the past, zoning <br />ordinances are interpreted by the courts in fa\'or of property' O\\illerS, and against cities. <br />See Frank's .l'lurSel)i Sales v. Cit); of Rose viI Ie, 295 N.\v~.2d 604 (1980). Ifpush came to <br />shove, I believe the courts VI/QuId interpret footnote 1 to allow fi've lots per 50, Se\Tel1 lots <br />per 70, etc., consistent \J\Tit11 the City's past practice. <br /> <br />If the City~ Council does not \~Tant to allo\v this t:ype of subdi\iision in the future~ <br />ill)l recormnendation is to ha\ie staff and the Plarming COmmiSSiOl1 prepare a proposed <br />ame11dment to Section 30-1581 \1ihich \'\,Quld more clearly set forth the Council's intent. <br /> <br />OP : 1943 1 82 vI <br />