CC_Minutes_2007_0611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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