My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2007 8:25:06 AM
Creation date
6/21/2007 11:30:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/11/2007
Meeting Type
Continued
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />"Where two or more contiguous vacant lots are held in single ownership <br />within a subdivision which was duly recorded prior to May 21, 1959, which <br />lots are individually not of the required minimum area or width for the district <br />in which they are situated, no special exceptions shall be required for the <br />issuance of building permits provided that such lots shall be developed in <br />groups or fractions of groups, as single lots, to provide the minimum lot <br />fi-ontage and area required for each structure. The purpose of this provision is <br />to permit utilization of isolated recorded lots which lack adequate width or <br />area so long as reasonable living standards can be provided and to widen <br />substandard-sized vacant lots wherever practicable so that they will be in <br />harmony with the existing or projected character of the neighborhood in <br />which they are situated" <br /> <br />If these lots were declared legal, homes could potentially be built on extremely narrow <br />lots. Since the Code did not require that owners replat their property when they built <br />the home, in theory, they could remove the existing structure and sell the two or three <br />underlying lots as legally buildable lots, and in conjunction with Recommendation 2, <br />build new homes on those lots. <br /> <br />Note: The City of Rose vi lie does not regulate the legal recording oflots; they are <br />recorded with the County. Parcels, as reflected on city parcel maps, can be an <br />assemblage of more than one legally recorded lot. <br /> <br />2. Allow lots zoned as R-llot to have a residence developed upon it that meets building <br />code <br /> <br />The Single-Family Residential Lot Split Advisory Group did not discuss this issue. It its <br />analysis, staff was unsure how this recommendation would alter current City regulation, <br />particularly in that Recommendation 4 does allow for future splitting or subdivision of single- <br />family lots. As described above, if Recommendation I where implemented, as long the new <br />homes met the building code, houses would allowed to be constructed on very small lots. <br /> <br />3. Notice to those within 1,000 feet of a proposed lot split and public hearing before <br />both the Planning Commission and City Council <br /> <br />There are instances in the under the existing subdivision regulation when an application to <br />split a single-family residential parcel is only heard at the City Council. For a minor <br />subdivision that is creating three or fewer parcels, the public hearing occurs at a City Council <br />meeting and omits the planning commission hearing that is required as part of the general <br />subdivision ordinance in which a preliminary plat application is taken to the Planning <br />Commission. Section lI04.04(E) states: ".. .the proposed [minor] subdivision, in sketch plan <br />form, shall be submitted to the City Council at a public hearing. . ." Bringing minor <br />subdivisions to the Planning Commission is a policy that the City Council may want to <br />consider. <br /> <br />. Page 3 <br /> <br />Analysis of Alternative Recommendations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.