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 />4. Edina has a policy similar to that of Minneapolis except that the average lot <br />size is based on surrounding lots in a 500-foot radius. The square foot area of lots created <br />by subdivision must be equal to or greater than the average oflots in a 500-foot radius. <br />It would appear from the chart and study on Page 5 of the analysis document that <br />someone is capable of handling averages and means. To imply that a system used in <br />many other suburbs and cities here and around the country is "too difficult" for our <br />residents and staff is at best inaccurate and at worst embarrassing. Your analysis is <br />correct and under our recommendation 4 lot splits would be allowed and would even <br />allow the possibility of gradually increasing density over time. However, the density of <br />neighborhoods would change far more gradually under this recommendation than those <br />outlined by the CAG. It was not the recommendation that no lots can be divided, only <br />that they must be divided in such a way as to maintain the character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />The remainder of the Recommendations in Section B, Subdivision Code appears to have <br />little bearing on the moratorium issue and to have little to do with the "Study Scope" as <br />defined in the Recommendations document. First, this was to be a consideration of "lot <br />splits," not "lot recombination."(Item 6) Lot recombination to form areas to be <br />"redeveloped" as major subdivisions or PUDs is a very different study. Roseville has <br />little or no history on the use of "private roads" for subdivisions and should undertake <br />considerable review before embarking on such a practice. (Item 4) And, if we are not <br />talking about lot recombination, there is no need for public roads. Flag lots are generally <br />inappropriate as the placing of a home in the backyard of another house not only affects <br />the property selling the flag lot, but also all the surrounding properties.(Items 7a and 7b) <br />It creates another driveway along the side yard of a single family home and a home <br />abutting the backyards of the surrounding properties. This is a concept that is out of date <br />with current practice in most communities and would not be permissible under most of <br />our existing codes. It raises public safety concerns for police, fIre, and medical access to <br />the property. The setting ofPUD fees (Item 5) is an internal issue related to Finance, not <br />an issue for a CAG. It appears from the recommendations of the CAG that staff asked <br />citizens to study a number of somewhat unrelated issues under the heading of "lot splits." <br />In fact, if the group had simply considered "lot splits" a different set of fIndings might <br />have emerged. <br /> <br />The citizen based Alternative Lot Split Policy Recommendation 3, I,OOO-foot notice for <br />proposed lot split hearing, was designed to engage broader citizen involvement in their <br />neighborhoods and thereby in their city government. As civic involvement is a stated <br />goal of the City Council in general and many members of the Council as individuals, it <br />would appear that this would be a reasonable request. Given the number of lot splits <br />done annually, such simple notification should not pose an unreasonable burden on either <br />staff time or resources. <br /> <br />When reviewing the CAG Recommendations, it should be noted that some of the <br />underlying assumptions and information in the CAG report is misleading. This is not to <br />say that it is deliberately so, but perhaps the information given to the group was <br />incomplete or misleading. For example, the most egregious of these is the table showing <br />Roseville's apparently large minimum lot size of 11,000 sf. Yet by the figures presented <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.