Posted: 10/28/04
By Clark Natalie
On Oct. 21, the Harris City Council met with the Harris Planning Commission for a workshop on the revision of the Zoning Ordinance. As it was a work session, no action was taken on any issue.
The main topic of concern was open space preservation. This dealt with clustering of houses. A minimum lot size needed to be decided on for the clustered area. The balance of the open space would be left undeveloped. This could be done with a conservation easement.
One of the other options would be not to use a conservation easement, but to leave the area in the original plat as an ěoutlot.î
Under a conservation easement, the easement is held by a township, city or land trust and is administered by them. The actual land title would be held by the owner who could continue to farm or use the land.
With an outlot, the city isnít holding the easement. It is platted land that is undevelopable. The plat is of record in the county recorderís office. It would then be usable as farm land, hunting land, etc. Also, should the city council and planning commission decide to change the ordinance in the future, the changes would automatically apply to the outlot, where a conservation easement would have to be amended to comply with new ordinances.
This would lead to the question of density and bonus density. How many additional units would be allowed per 40 acres if the houses are clustered instead of spread out over the whole land area. With bonus density, more houses are allowed, but would actually create more open space.
A discussion of minimum size lot to support structures, septic system and alternative septic system ensued. A one-acre site might be more than adequate to support the necessary items for each unit. If lots were larger, the cluster would not create the open space the council and planning commission are looking for.
With a basis of four lots per 40, it was decided that if the units were clustered, five units per 40 could be allowed.
The next question was how many lots per cluster? If 80 acres were involved, would 10 lots be allowed, with the remaining 65 acres being undevelopable? And would the transfer of building rights make the clusters larger with more open space?
The clusters should be able to support all of the lots, and meet health and safety issues. Any cluster with more than three units would be a major plat.
All transfers of building rights between parcels would have to have all land involved located within the city limits.
Shoreland ordinances were touched upon. It was suggested that the City adopt the Chisago County Shoreland Ordinance. This ordinance applies not only to shoreland but also to bluff areas, along creeks, etc. The councilors and planning commissioners will get a copy of the County ordinance to review prior to the next meeting.
Councilman Wayne Buisman asked about community gardens. Attorney Kevin Shoeberg pointed out the problems these can create. The idea is good but has to be done correctly, he said. Shoeberg was aware of a situation which arose where a farmer had leased acreage which was platted into individual gardens. When all the families would arrive on a weekend, there was a problem with parking, traffic and sanitation. If such projects are operated under a conditional use permit, all of these problems can be addressed, he noted.
Shoeberg also pointed out that the ordinance on nonconforming uses would have to be amended. The Legislature has modified the statute, he said. It has been changed so that a nonconforming use property owner has the right to not only continue to use the property, but also expand the use. If a structure is destroyed and an application is made to rebuild within 180 days, the statute says it has to be allowed. This is for both structures and uses.
©ECM Post Review
6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com