CC_Minutes_2007_0611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 This is a concept that is out of date with current practice in most communities and would not be permissible under most of our existing codes.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