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 />The City Code sets forward that land owners witllln 350 feet of an action that is specific to a <br />pmiicular parcel oflm1d at a public hearing will be noticed prior to that meeting (Section <br />108.01 (B)). In practice, the Community Development Department notices property owners <br />within the greater of350 feet or the longest climension of the property. In most cases, this is <br />less than the requested 1,000 feet. Increasing the notification area is something that the City <br />COlmcil could consider as future policy. <br /> <br />4. Lot Size Based on Average of Contiguous Lots <br /> <br />The Advisory Group discussed ti1e idea of basing future lot size on medim1 din1ensions and <br />area of the neighboring prope1ties. The following is the discussion on a neighborhood-context <br />or sliding-scale zoning ordinance that was presented in the group's fmal report (May 2007). <br /> <br />After much debate on the merits of the neighborhood-context subdivision <br />methodology, the CAG achieved a unanimous agreement that this was not the <br />preferred regulatory tool fom which to base future lot split decisions. While <br />CAG members appreciated the neighborhood contextuality afforded through <br />this type of regulation, general sentiment within the group was that the <br />benefits created though this type of ordinance was outweighed by some of its <br />negative attributes, which included decreased understandability for residents, <br />which would result in the needfor technical expertise to determine if a lot <br />could be divided., and difficult administration. Some CAG members also felt <br />the application sliding scale, such as Edina's, would result in unrealistically' <br />large minimum lot sizes in some neighborhoods. Another concern around this <br />practice arose around the concept of an ever-changing set of minimum lot <br />standards this method creates depending on the order of subdivisions within <br />anyone general area. <br /> <br />TI1e concept presented in Recommendation 4 is a modified version of the slide-scale <br />regulations that the Advisory Group discussed. Although using the average or mean of the <br />contiguous parcels may elevate some of the technical and administrative concerns of the <br />Advisory Group, ultin1ately is still creates a changing-set of standards after each subdivision <br />of property. <br /> <br />In its analysis, staff s concern is that of eqnity for all property owners within the entire <br />community and within the same general neighborhoods. Although property owners have no <br />vested right in the future regulation of their property, there is an expectation and requirement <br />that properties within the same zoning district be treated equally-what's fair for one owner is <br />fair for all owners. <br /> <br />. Page 4 <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.