HomeMy WebLinkAboutpf_03133
pf3l3~
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
.,
DATE: 9/27/99
ITEM NO: J1
Approval:
Agenda Section:
LAND USE
City of Roseville - First reading of an ordinance to amend Sections 1101.02,
(Subqj.vis\on.Definitions) 1103.06, (Lot Standards) and 1104.04.04E (Minor
Subdivisions) of the Roseville Subdivision Ordinance, creating a procedure
for approving flag lots. (PF #3133)
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 In June, 1999 the City Council requested the staff and Planning Commission prepare an
ordinance that described the procedure for establishing "flag lots".
1.2 On August 11, 1999 the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the creation of regulations allowing flag lots. At this' hearing no citizens addressed the
Commission, however, the Commission requested a nUmber of language modifications to
the proposed ordinance. Based on the number of modifications and a request for the
current flag lot locations, the Planning Commission continued the item to their regularly
scheduled September 15, 1999 meeting.
1.3 Staff reviewed the minutes and its notes form the August 11, Planning Commission
meeting and made the requested and appropriate modifications. A revised proposed draft
ordinance was provided to the Commission for their consideration at their September 15
meeting. The revised ordinance included all of the known revisions the Planning
Commission suggested and those that staff felt necessary for interpretation and
implementation. The Planning Commission continued its work to the September 15,
1999 meeting.
2.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACfION
2.1 On September 15, 1999 the Roseville Planning Commission reopened the public hearing
regarding the request for amending certain sections of the Subdivision Ordinance that would
create rules and regulations for developing flag lots. No citizens addressed the Commission
during the public hearing portion of the meeting.
2.2 The Commission again had a number of questions regarding the proposed ordinance
amendments. Issues such who was notified as a part of this process, the 40% frontage
rule, setbacks from adjacent principle structures, whether to expand the ordinance to
cover zoning districts other than R-l, and total flag lot square footage, were discussed by
staff and the Planning Commission.
PF3133 - Planning Commission (09/08/99) Page 1 of 2
2.3 Given the complexities and impacts potentially created from implementation of the
proposed flag lot ordinance and the fact that some Planning Commissioners were not in
favor of advocating a flag lot ordinance, the Planning Commission passed the
proposed ordinance onto the City Council without a recommendation.
3.0 STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 On July 19,1999 the Roseville City Council directed staff to develop criteria allowing
the creation of flag lots, and the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to
consider the proposal and seek comments and modifications to a proposed ordinance.
The attached proposed Subdivision Ordinance amendments are the outcome of the
meetings held by the Planning Commission.
3.2 If an ordinance is to be created allowing the creation of flag lots within Roseville, then
staff supports the attached ordinance. However, if the City Council determines that
creating flag lots is not in the best interest of the City of Roseville, then staff suggests
an ordinance modification that reflects this decision.
4.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACfION
4.1 Discuss the report form the Planning Commission and determine future action. If an
ordinance is to be considered, the following actions are necessary.
4.2 HOLD FIRST READING
4.3 ESTABLISH DATE FOR SECOND READING
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236)
\\Victoria\CommDev\Planning Files\3133]lag Lots Ordinance\RCA (092799).doc
PF3133 - Planning Commission (09/08/99) Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a definition for
a "flag lot" and establish the conditions under which flag lots may be created. Flag lots
will provide the City of Roseville with a method to permit, where appropriate, additional
development on large underdeveloped lots.
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) is hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot that has less than the minimum frontage and/or
lot width on an existing street or public street or right-of-way per Section 1103.06 Al and Bl of
the City Code. A flag lot is too narrow to allow for construction ofthe principal structure at
the minimum required front setback line, but has an extended driveway reaching an area large
enough for the principal structure that meets all minimum standards of the Section 1004.02D
of the City Code. Flag lots are only allowed in the Rl, Single Family Residential District.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel or lot
into two (2) buildable lots as defined in Section 1101.02 of the City Code. A flag lot may be
created where the following conditions are met:
1. The flag lot has frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
2. The flag lot has a minimum frontage of 40% of the required lot width indicated
in the R-1, Single Family Residential District and the adjoining lot from which
the flag lot is being created will remain a legal conforming lot meeting all
applicable requirements of Section 1004.02D of the City Code.
3. The flag lot has a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width, constructed in
accordance with City Code.
1
4. The minimum structure setback from all property lines shall meet the
requirements of Section 1 004.02D of the City Code or the proposed principal
structure shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any existing adjoining principal
structure, whichever is greater.
5. The main lot area of the proposed flag lot shall be a minimum of 11,000 square
feet in size. The lot square footage shall not include the narrow portion of the
lot that extends from the street right-of-way to the main lot area.
6. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and shall minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
impact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee may
consider the proposed or alternative placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
air conditioners, and lighting.
7. The proposed flag lot may not be created if said lot requires the extension of
public utility systems (watermain, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer). Service
connections to City systems shall be the responsibility of the owner/applicant
8. The principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
9. A certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 11 04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security in an
amount and form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with any terms
and conditions of approval.
10. In addition to meeting all the requirements set out above, the Development
Review Committee may recommend additional terms and conditions for City
Council approval.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby
amended by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this
day of October 1999.
2
Attachment
FLAG LOT CREATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
PRO CON
1. Creates a parcel which is non-
1. Follows Comprehensive Plan policies conforming to adjoining parcels.
to use land, roads and utilities
efficiently. 2. Reduces neighborhood open space
Reduces street frontage necessary for and may invade back yard privacy of
2. adjoining parcels.
lots - more efficiently uses existing
streets. 3. May reduce value of adjoining parcels
Adds new single family housing. who count on uopen" space as a
3. benefit of living in that location.
children and possibly value to the lot
and neighborhood. 4. May disrupt natural drainage ways.
4. May create Uunique" new lots and 5. May add a large house "out of
more diversity of sizes and shapes. character" with adjoining properties.
5. Reduces land costs attached to'small 6. Adds additional impervious surface
house on large lot. (driveways) to neighborhood.
6. Requires no new sewer, water, road 7. Makes flag lot subdivision too simple
system. with little public input.
7. Makes flag lot subdivision a simple 8. Regulations do not guarantee
administrative process. residential design and materials
compatibility.
9. Adds construction disruptions.
Q:\Planning Files\3133Jlag Lots
Ordinance\pro_con092799.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 8, 1999:
6c. Planning File 3133. City of Roseville request for an amendment to
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions), Section 1103.06 (Lot
Standards), and Section 1104.04E (Minor Subdivisions) of the City
Code, creating a procedure for approving Flag Lots.
Chair Klausing opened the public hearing and explained the proposed ordinance
amendment discussed at the August Planning Commission meeting.
The proposed flag lot ordinance has ten conditions.
Member Cunningham asked if lots to be subdivided as flag lots could be reviewed
based on taxable value. More study is necessary.
Member Egli asked if the "flag" area still contained 11,000 s.f. (no).
Member Cunningham asked if there was screening required by the flag lot, to
protect privacy of adjoining parcels. Thomas Paschke suggested adding screening
phase in condition #10.
Member Olson stated she was concerned about the frontage; should it be more
than 40%. The frontage should include the addition of setback adjacent to the
flag lot so as to not create lots which cannot comply with setbacks on comer lots.
A letter from Phyllis Christofferson (8.30.99) was read into the record. She
opposed the flag lot proposal. (letter attached to minutes)
There was no public comment offered. Chair Klausing closed the hearing.
Motion. Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend
that the Planning Commission affirm to the City Council the current prohibition
of flag lots.
Ayes: 2, Egli, Olson
Nays: 3, Klausing, Wilke, Cunningham
Abstain: 1, Mulder
Motion failed.
Member Mulder noted there are 250 parcels which could be divided; there would
be strong opposition. This changes the character and conditions of adjacent
parcels. New houses should have to meet all setbacks. The Planning
Commission should send a clear recommendation to the City Council not
permitting flag lots throughout the city. Each lot should be reviewed on its
merits.
1
2 Thomas Paschke noted that many lots could meet the size and frontage but there
3 are far less than 250 lots that could actually be developed.
4
5 Chair Klausing asked Thomas Paschke to describe the past history of this request.
6 The City Council tabled a flag lot request and requested the staff to prepare
7 options. The City Council asked for a draft ordinance and sought input.
8
9 Member Cunningham noted that there is one flag lot on County Road B for which
10 more detail would be helpful. He suggested more information from neighbors
11 adjoining existing flag lots.
12
13 Member Cunningham suggested the flag lot minimum frontage should be 85 feet.
14
15 Member Egli suggested that the subdivision with a standard 85-foot frontage
16 might be appropriate; something less may not be possible to deny; it may be a
17 "switch behind people's backs".
18
19 Member Wilke noted that there might be some instances where flag lots are a
20 reasonable solution.
21
22 Member Mulder noted that a 180-foot lot could be subdivided and meet the Code.
23 The "flag" should be 85 feet and meet setbacks and size for a regular lot.
24
25 Chair Klausing clarified the direction to the Planning Commission from the City
26 Council; the Planning Commission should report something. The City Council
27 must make the decision.
28
29 Member Cunningham suggested a frontage of 85% frontage rather than 40%.
30
31 Member Egli explained that shape is different than size; a flag (or "1" shaped lot)
32 that meets all requirements could be approved. There should be no prohibition.
33
34 Member Olson explained that the description of a flag lot in the proposed
35 ordinance includes substandard size.
36
37 Motion. Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend
38 approval of the proposed ordinance on flag lots. (See below)
39
40 Member Cunningham asked that the frontage of a flag lot be 60% of the required
41 lot (Section 3, #2).
42
43 Member Cunningham suggested the Planning Commission table and notify
44 property owners who could comment on the request.
45
1 Chair Klausing suggested two votes: one on the ordinance and one on flag lots
2 generally.
3
4 Motion. Member Cunningham moved to table to the next Planning Commission
5 meeting until additional information could be gathered from existing property
6 adjacent to flag lots or proposed flag lots.
7
8 Motion to table failed with no second.
9
10 Thomas Paschke noted that the flag lot ordinance should apply to substandard frontage
11 lots with a "flag", not an "1" shaped lot with 85 feet, which would require additional
12 conditions on a permitted lot.
13
14 Member Egli suggested a 70-foot frontage for flag lots (30 feet setback plus 40 foot
15 frontage).
16
17 Member Mulder asked for clarification of the 85-foot flag lot frontage requirement.
18
19 Motion. Member Egli moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, to amend the
20 existing motion to a minimum frontage of 70 feet.
21
22 Member Wilke found a percentage more effective.
23 J\yes:4
24 Nays: 2
25
26 Motion. Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend
27 approval of the proposed ordinance on flag lots with a minimum frontage of flag
28 lots of 70 feet.
29
30 Ayes: 3, Egli, Cunningham, Klausing
31 Nays: 3, Wilke, Olson, Mulder
32 Motion died.
33
34 Motion. Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to send the
35 proposed ordinance as amended, with 70 feet of minimum flag lot frontage, to the
36 City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
37
38 J\yes: 5
39 Nays: 1
40
41 Member Olson and Egli stressed that additional public input was needed.
42
'if ~13~
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE: 9/08/99
ITEM NO: 6(d)
Agenda Section:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Roseville - Request to amend Sections 1101.02, (Subdivision
Definitions) 1103.06, (Lot Standards) and 1104.04.04E (Minor Subdivisions)
of the Roseville Subdivision Ordinance, creating a procedure for approving
flag lots. (PF #3133). CONTINUATION
Manager Approved:
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 At the August 11, 1999 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting the
Commission held the public hearing regarding the creation of regulations allowing flag
lots. However, the request was tabled to allow staff to make changes to the proposal
based on the Commission's comments.
1.2 Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration are the revised amendments to
specific sections of the City Code. These revisions take into account those indicated at
the meeting on August 11 as well as those necessary for staff to properly enforce and
interpret the proposed ordinance.
2.0 SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
By motion, recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Sections 1101.02
(Subdivision Definitions), 1103.06 (Lot Standards), and 1104.04.E (Minor Subdivisions)
of the Roseville City Code creating procedures for approving minor subdivisions that
create flag lots provided certain conditions are met.
The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration on August 23,1999.
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (651-490-2236)
Q:\Planning Files\3133 ]lag Lots Ordinance\RPCA (090899).doc
PF3133 - Planning Commission (09/08/99) Page I of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag Lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose oHhis Ordinance is to provide a definition for
a "flag lot" and establish the conditions under which flag lots may be created. Flag lots
will provide the City of Roseville with a method to permit, where appropriate, additional
development on large underdeveloped lots.
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) is hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot that has less than the minimum frontage and/or
lot width on an existing street or public street or right-of-way per Section 1103.06 Al and Bl of
the City Code. A flag lot is too narrow to allow for construction of the principal structure at
the minimum required front setback line, but has an extended driveway reaching an area large
enough for the principal structure that meets all minimum standards of the Section 1004.02D
of the City Code. Flag lots are only allowed in the Rl, Single Family Residential District.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel or lot
into two (2) buildable lots as defined in Section 1101.02 of the City Code. A flag lot may be
created where the following conditions are met:
1. The flag lot has frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
2. The flag lot has a minimum frontage of 40% of the required lot width indicated
in the R-l, Single Family Residential District and the adjoining lot from which
the flag lot is being created will remain a legal conforming lot meeting all
applicable requirements of Section 1004.02D of the City Code.
3. The flag lot has a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width, constructed in
accordance with City Code.
1
,
~
4. The minimum structure setback from all property lines shall meet the
requirements of Section 1004.02D of the City Code or the proposed principal
structure shall be a minimum of30 feet from any existing adjoiningprincipal
structure, whichever is greater.
5. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and shall minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
impact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee may
consider the proposed or alternative placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
air conditioners, and lighting.
6. The proposed flag lot may not be created if said lot requires the extension of
public utility systems (watermain, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer). Service
connections to City systems shall be the "responsibility of the owner/applicant.
7. The principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
8. A certit1cate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security in an
amount and form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with any terms
and conditions of approval.
9. In addition to meeting all the requirements set out above, the Development
Review Committee may recommend additional terms and conditions for City
Council approval.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby
amended by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
day of October 1999.
Passed this
Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\Revised Ordinance.doc
2
Phyllis Christofferson
2020 N Prior Avenue
Roseville, MN 55113-5440
City of Roseville City Council
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Attention: Mayor Dan Wall
Q.~~" ~~~
. () CCH.~c:\~_ C~~c {\.k. )
f~\ G' (::.-:). r'r:j)~~f7'~~?t":~NW\\ s.~\&-
;:Ii:!~~~'~~'"
:! )),; .- .- -- !,:,! 'I.!;"
~:..~.' - i !S.~d
i'
---------~-- -
- ---- -~~
--- " .. -. .
August 30, 1999
Flag lots in Roseville? Two houses, one behind the other on one lot?
I watched the Roseville Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 1999. I was surprised to see a change
in the sub-division ordinance being considered allowing "flag lots", allowing construction of two houses
to be built on one lot. I am happy to say the commissioners present were giving serious consideration to
the ramifications of such a drastic change.
We have lived in Roseville for over thirty years and have always thought that existing property owners
should be considered when changes are being proposed on lot ordinances adjacent to them that would
devalue their property. We would not be affected directly by this, but I would hate to see the City start
squeezing one home behind the other on one lot just to allow more houses in Roseville.
No Roseville resident attended the Planning Commission meeting.. To my knowledge there was no
publicity or notice to residents that such an action was to be considered at this meeting.
I feel this proposed "flag lots" ordinance should not be allowed on lots with 150 feet of frontage or
less. The betterment of Roseville is the goal of this commission, I hope. In this light, I feel the present
ordinance should not be changed to allow "flag lots" .
If submitting an acceptable change to the sub-division ordinance is the Planning Commission's
responsibility, I suggest the following items be considered with others you deem pertinent.
. Buildable Area
a. size, number of sides, dimension of each four sides
b. location of each lot has reasonable area for location of the house, attached garage,
and associated decks, or patios, and that there is sufficient room for the location of the house
to be positioned to minimize the physical impacts of the lot and to be
consistent with the surrounding neighberhood
. Lots without minimum frontage.
Thank you for giving this matter serious consideration.
Sincerely,
.......'-----=-> '~ - --~.
I ,--../"" "., . . .
'''-.JZ.:/-L.L-t.-J '( ;{~t t!!ACf.(Vcd~-?)
Phyllis Christofferson
2020 N Prior Avenue
Roseville, MN 55113-5440
A(;
~....L
.,0
~m... D
W
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCil
DISCUSSION/DIRECTION
DATE: 07/19/99
ITEM NO:
A enda Section:
roved:
PRO OSALS FOR FLAG LOT ORDINANCE (PF3133)
1.0 BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1999, the Roseville City Council considered the request by Seth Eggessa regarding a
variance and lot split on property located at 1992 Cleveland Avenue. The City Council's action,
in essence, directed staff to work with the City Attorney and Mr. Eggessa to eliminate the
number of variances being requested for the site and to review potential impacts created by
flag lots.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED
Since the City Council's action, staff developed a list of five potential actions the City could
pursue. These were presented to the Council on June 26, 1999. The Council asked for further
work on alternative 2.2.
2.1 Interim Use Permit - Based on Mr. Eggessa's statements to staff, Planning
Commission and City Council, the City could issue an interim use permit (Section
1012.09) that limits the number of years the existing home is allowed to be located on the
subject lot. The permit could be approved for any time duration, such as 5, 7 or 10 years
in length and would allow the proposed structure to be constructed and the existing home
to be removed at the end of the permit period. Once removed the parcel would be
brought into conformity.
2.2 Flag lots - This proposal requires a text amendment to the zoning ordinance related to lot
size and configurations to allow creation of flag lots under certain circumstances. Staff
could research language from other metropolitan cities and provide the Council with a
draft text amendment for their consideration. Should the Council agree with the proposed
text amendment, staff would forward the proposed modification to the Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation.
2.3 Accessory Apartments - This proposal also requires research and a text amendment to
the zoning ordinance to allow separate apartment houses on single family residential
parcels under certain circumstances. Staff could research how other cities address
accessory apartments/homes that are utilized by a member of the principal owner family.
2.4 Grant a Variance - Staff can pursue modifications in the proposal presented to the
Council on May 24 to eliminate all variances except one for lot width on the proposed
PF3l33 - City Council(071999) Page I of 2
new parcel. This proposal would require the finding of hardship and acceptance by CIe
Council of the creation of a flag lot (no modification in the zoning ordinance would be
required). The existing home would still be considered a pre-existing non-conforming
use do to its side yard setback infraction; however, the lot would be conforming to the
City Code.
2.5 Deny the ReqUJIest - The City Council has the option to deny the request should they
conclude that the above options are unacceptable.
3.0 DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL 6/26/99
The Council requested further work and discussion of alternative 2, Flag Lots, and requested the staff
to draft an ordinance which would allow for the use of flag lots on sites where the size and frontz.ge
would allow for 2 or more homes at a density of 4 or less homes per acre (11,000 s.f. lots or greater).
Staff has reviewed the possible number of flag lots that could be create and found that there are
approximately 250 parcels in the city with 135 feet of frontage and over 22,000 s.f. in area. Kat aH
of these parcels are developable for additional flag lots because of the location of existing struet:..rres
each site. Further mapped information will be available at Planning Commission meeting.
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 14, 1999, reviewed the alternatives listed above
and the attached draft flag lot ordinance, and have provided comments and recommendations (as
attached) for consideration by the City Council at the work session of July 19, 1999.
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\CC-FlagLot(071999).doc
PF3 133 - City Council(071999) Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. Because the City of Roseville has few remaining undeveloped
parcels, there is a need to provide methods to subdivide remaining large, undeveloped low
density parcels to accommodate additional development. One method of providing for this
development is by creating "flag lots". The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a
definition for a "flag lot" and establish a process for the review of proposed subdivisions
that include "flag lots".
Section 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) IS hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the minimum frontage or lot
width on a public right-of-way specified in the City Code. The lot width does not allow for
construction of the principal structure at the minimum required front setback line, requiring
an extended driveway to reach an area large enough for the principal structure. The lot has
more than the required lot depth and area for the zoning district in which it is located.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel into 2
buildable lots with the following conditions:
1.
2.
The flag lot shall have frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
The frontage shall be a minimum of 40% of the required lot frontage for the
zoning district in which it is located.
The flag lot shall have a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width,
constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles.
The flag lot shall be assessed for improvements based on frontage or ctI bft~'" .~:
shall be no more than the equivalent to a standard non-corner lot. ~ . ..'
The minimum structure setback from any existing adjoining principa structure a
shall be thirty (30) feet.
The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and must minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
3.
4.
5.
6.
1
impact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee clay
consider the proposed or possible placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
air conditioners, and lighting.
The proposed flag lot and minor subdivision shall not require installatior: of
additional public utilities. Service connections to City systems shall be the
~\) responsibility of the owner/applicant.
~o 8. The principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
rJ for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
~ (', 0J~ =)The flag lot shall be reviewed by the Development Review Committee, and n:ay
" C\ ~~t/ be approved with terms and conditions.
\\ ~?~ ) ,)~. The certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
~~ ~~ requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
# requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security :in an
@ r:-.,jl!Jl{j amount and form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with any terms
t r!P~( f and conditions of approval. ~-,
"" ~ \\~ Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the R~~ville City Code is hereby amended
\IJ ~ ~ ~ding Section 1104.04 F. as follows' "
~[)0~ 0 Paragraph 3, The minor subdivision process may be used to cr.ate a flag lot
rcs~ .
)(j\')j Section 5.
Ij publication.
-~1?~~'~
0-..vr ~" .
1/
)(O
7.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
~ ~sed thi~ 0 day of July. 1999.
~ ~.\I
,o~ 0 "~to~~
_ ~ f\[.J
~wvr) ATT
~\J
Q &=;\ ~ SJ
~ Approved as to Form and ConteIJt:=-~~\ ///
~ {j~/
_?\\/0/ If'' 'i
City Attorney DaW' II
~
Q:\Planning Files\3133_FlagLots\Ordinance RPCA(071499).doc
;?
\ (' ,
Dal}iel G. Wall, ~~~{
,,; r\I "'1",'\
,,' '/,",',
J'0r/,// '
,'! Vi" J
i~,
\>
i~
1,::;::/ ,j
v
2
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14,1999 ~.\\ /....' ~
,RE: PROPOSED FLAG LOT ORDINANCE .~.l'lr.
A general discussion was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues .' (1 I
1) Eggessa - with no provision for two dwellings on a lot (an interim use would help this); 2) flag i'" q< .... '.
lots may be acceptable but could also present compatibility problems for future Planning ~ I W ..
Commission members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa variance) would be better than a ~ [Z"
new flag lot code provision. "
<>
~ Member Olson objected to the purpose of the proposed ordinance. There is no problem with lar~
~. Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because ofreduced ~ ~
~ I I . n space and odd building placement. ~ ~ ~~
ember Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and land uses on the site including car storage ?,
withflaglotfrontyardadjacenttobackyards-incompatibleandcouldchange water drainage. .,'''" _(o:~' ,,1'
I~ flag lots are not restricted to R-I zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with su" ~ "'~
~ .1 wi r. ~~~~
T ~ ~reate ::, Co~~~~~; ;:.~t:::::.,.;,~~::~h~~:~ ~ei~ ~~:~~::::~~:~:~~t pre,.ntco~'{ ~ '
)~,. ,,'I',~,: \~' Member Wilke explamed that each nag lot ,hould ,tand on it, own me.;iS and be reviewe"f".;>>~.~ .' '@/'
,~ individually. · ~~ ~ d
Chair Kla..ing noted there may not be a direct can,. and effect when creating a nag loe · Tbere;\I1 ~~,
situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development df ~ ::.p ~
~ ~ ~::,.ting open 'pace el.ewhere in the city or metro area - it wonld then make ..n.. to develop the ~ ~
~ j.:!Iii j:,:~:,Mulder .tated the nag lot ordinance .honld not be adopted .imply to .olve Mr, Egge..a'. ~~.
~ - . ~homas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how they are used to fill in voids in low- ~ 0 rf;; I' ..
density areas where up to four units per acre are allowed. cJ:... .,, ~
Member Mulder said flag lots in new developments work better than trying to introduce such new'\\~<&-~~~~'0
flag lots among existing residential lots. ~"<W ,~Q ~,
Chair Klausing liked the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use ofland. This ordinance may ~
not be the tool - other options could be looked at. '. I ~, 0
ember Olson explained the areas currently lived in should be retained as large lot liva. ble are#.' " "
9these large lots add to the quality of life in the first ring suburbs. ~~... .' .1' ~~
Member Egli expressed concerns with large lot, land use and setback conflicts. Are there h. 0 ~ ~~.. ". ..' I.~ '." ,-
identification numbers from the street (fire issue)? " I . ~~' )~~
Mwber Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners. The ordinance should not tie the :~~". ~ ~
nds of future generations. Each situation should be looked at individually on merits. M. .em. b...e r t.,. (~
. der would like to see flag lots as a CUP with conditions. This would allow each lot to stand 0 .'.' .
's merits with conditions. (general consensus)
Member Olson explained that interim uses may also be a better approach, especially fo~\~'!a.
Q:\Planning Files\3133]lag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc 'ee~
~
0
~
I .
I If\i
I
I
I
I
L ___
- ,
. I ~
I
I
!i I
I
---1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I --
u
I
1
I
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~. ,
~ f ~ ~ '
t:: ~ ~ ~ !
~11 ~ ~ I
+rZ'~,,~1
..;:: ~ ~ ~ I
.~ l.' ~ r.o i
V)~~
~
i=-
~
o
i=
0...
Ei
o
(f)
ill
o
o
ill
(f)
o
0...
o
Cl
[L
i ~ ~
~ ~ 't
~n
i ~ ~.
: '0 .i
~p
i 8 '
<( a~~
~ ; i 1
~ ~ l j
Ci t ~ _
<( : d
Q. i5:
- 8 :>
~ ~ i
: j s ~
i "j to
~ ~ s I
o
Z
ill
<..!)
W
...J
.1
1 ~ ~!
~ ~ .. C "G
~-!~l~1
~ = ! , \ ~ ~
Si'~it':~
... ... : .. :: : ]
ijUUj
..O~e8@
.. 6 s
~ 'c ~
" ~ .
<::> ; S
~" 'Q
i ; ]
~ ; 8
'0 t ~
~ s i
CD ~~~
...~:
u:I aH
u '.
Ci ~J~
<( Q.. 0-
CL ]~i><
8 ~ ~ ~
~ ; t ~
, l I ~
I : , 8
~ ~ ~::
r-..
oJ
o
a-
a-
i~g~~
~~~ ~J
~ E ~ ~ i
:k~~'O
~ ~ ,~ ~ j
- H1H
~-~~ :
~ ~~-5'.!!
i;.. "",=, "
: i5 E 00 S
~
j
::.
*
-;
"
! ~
, .
;:;~
~ ~'~ .
",,'~
f"\ "'r"'! '5 ~
r ~ ~~ .
lit I ~~~
m~ ~o~ ^
.s~8 f~;
<b~; a
~~e~ ~
li f ,
\;j
~ I
-~~~ ~ I
~
LO
o ui~
z z,
- w:!
d)' ::3~
Z ~~ ~
~ ~t ~
..", fO<f)' )(
g,~ ~ ~
:;,g~~[~
iD Il"'WhJ~
"() . cD ...J..J ;8
~ ,,~~~::;
~ui~iiiU~
0:
'"
*
~
}-
w
)-
fl
:::J
d)
IL
()
W
~
<I
U
IL
I- ;'-:-~,,,
nJ ' . ..~ -, :'" .,.:.:::.:.."
IL '";"'1 S't-.';" >,~'~"'1"",...,.,,"
. -J.I.I- _' '. 'j 1~::~1~f~.~~~t{.~~~ "
..... . _I. _ . --' _ ',- .t.4'~"",,, ;->"'11<^;:1-.
~ ~-;::'.J. . -"";-one~J~';:-' ':.
, , 1""::~~(p~g...rl.;1-,-,, "#~.,
"-' ',' .""'t',p;~'" :r- '" ~.._";,.,, ,_.,.",.;:-.:>:1.' .
1=.: - '\: :~> ':";:'~~~Hi~?~~~~*~~~~~~i
..
~ "
~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ;:
:;,. ~ ~ ~
~~E~~
~ j ~. ~
V) ~ ",
'" 0
~ '"
21
~
S"
,
"'/
;"
.j
.v
-
"
...
....
~,
~
j
~~
,
,
~
.<
......1'...
j.;;.
~'!'r-::
'I.t
~~~
-a=B
~~.
;;!s~~
,'..)- -}
fn
<
~ - ...
iH
.
-
I
I
-~'~--- ~
l
1
~
~ I! _
~ i g~
':( I' - ~
"! I
i
I
.~
~
(f)
z
o
f=
0..
iY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(j)
o
0..
o
CY
Q..
] ~ ~
a ~ ~
o . ,
. . .
~ '
~ ~ ~
] ! 1
0> .
;: ~ :!:
~,';
~ ; ]
~ ! a
~ ! ~
, ' t
CD .:.
.... "' !
rrJ .; &
o ~! :
a ~ J ~
<( ;. .
0.. " r;
.:: '0 ~ :;
~ ~ ~ :
. ~ ':
J ~
~'2
.oo,,~"@
; i
~ i~.il
} ... i 1. .. ~
o '. ~! \q
Z . ! ~ 0 .
W .:; .::::
(!) jil1jl~
w
-.J
ill
o ui~
~ z~
UJ't
of ::3-
z ~~ ~
2 ~11\ ~
zt 8
· ~()U).:
:;, Q ~~ ~ :
(!) :;)02-
fV>XIL"
1J IL"UJW:R
o .cD...J-I ~
~ ~'2~U~ J
0.. ...dlll': ~
~ W-lo;U ~
Pi
~p
~ & '
<(~;~
ill s ~ i
u ~ ~ ~
~ ~:;
0.. ~!:
; ~ ~
a 0 .
; ~ i
, ~ ~ ::
~ ~ : to
_ .. s ~
~
~
}-
w
>
W
J
ill
IL
()
W
i-
<[
U
IL
f-
S ..:
JjH
~~)~
:?
"".';- :'~' .'; j'- .
j.=.._----
(f)
z
o
i=
Q
tY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
Q
o
CY
Q..
~ ~ ",
; s ~
~ i j
i ~ ~
~ '; ~
:; E ~
~ ~ :
<l 8'~
: ~ :
, (;;a:.
[i a II> S
U ~ S i
Ci ~ '; .
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ "-
~ ~ i
: J I ~
~ 5 ~ r
~ " ~. :..
; ~ ~
U~
~ I ~
"; t ~
; 5 ~
m ~ ~ <
id .)~~
u. .
Sf ~~~
CL ;~:~
~ ~ ~ :
~ : , -
j ~ 1 ;
4 ~ ~. 2
;
I ~ ~ 1
" .
~.~~lf~
~ ~ ~ t t . ~ !
~ ~UUii
~ jj~~!~~
~ .oo~~"~
i'
cD
.-0
C7'
C7'
"':!i
~
- ~ ~
{~ % ~ ~
niB ~
:.;-: ~Q . 1]
'~'8>~ ,.J
- H1H ~ ~
k~~~~ J '"
'h3-~ 3
~ ; f ~ ~
~
.....S'..
. ,. ! ~ ~ ~ ~,
...... '~"" ~ n
· -m~ !:u
'l\ . 3~~ h;
~ :~~"} iii
~ ,
~ ,
-~'~~ 0
\j\ . 2
~
.i
>
~2
~:
"
"
.
I
I
I
I
I
T
,
I-
~ '
=: ! ~:
~ I'
- ,
I
II
0.1.
~
11)
U ui:i)
~ z~
W!
::II'}
~- aJ:R ~
() >...
d) ~t ~
.. ~ Or;j)' If.
~o~ :i
:;,g~~[~
I1J ll"wl1J ~
'0 ~...J..J..
~ \')~~~ ::
~ uCi @U ~
Q:
$9'2'fl
J' :'7;o.~os
-0:'. ,.....
~i0cOj;)
lio
-- .-.
}-
W
>
~
::J
ill
1L
()
W
i-
<(
U
lL L _ _. _
- ~"~":1 ;::~, 1/-~l~(QI:!!
I- . "'''''w'''''''I""'/h
nI .-::>> {;;;:~;:'o~.'}:t"""' .
IL . - '~""~_~;r"o.. ~,__
. ..... _. - '~"<..,~",.,"~,;,""~...,.""",,.
ua '. .'.:". :.:,-e...... ..
" . -. --
V J-=--
~ .:::
~ ~ ~ 2
~ :::-
~] ~ ~~
}~. i ~ =1
~ ~ ~ ~
:tj~$
:: ....
(J)
z
o
i=
Q..
Ci
o
(J)
llJ
o
o
llJ
(J)
o
Q..
o
Ci
Q..
- ... ....
. , ,
~ , .
· ; 1
~ ~ "
t s~
~ ~ !
'Q t S
'; ~ ~
> . .
<! 2'~
~ ; i 1
[j is~
C/ ~ ~ .
<!~~.
Q. ;~~
. , .
: :: i
; J ~ ~
~ ~ ~ f
:[,
o
:;-
~
,
~.
... ... ::.;
;Hl ~
.. Z'~.~o .y
:5~o,?..~:
~~~~~ ~:
:. ;; · i: r:--.' .:Ji.
~ i !~~ ~ ;::
HEi~ ~.
>
~E
<.
~~
"
,.
.
H!
Iii
~
I
ii
o
2
T
j
.i:{~
tn. :~-o- j _ _
~ ~ ~
~ 3 ~
~ : ~
~ ~ ..
i ': ~
. : a
~ t ~
~ ~ i
~ - , ,
w ~.. ~
... ~...
.-I :: :; &
W j 1 :
~ q~
<!~~r
c- j~rt.t
~ I::. ~ t
~ ~ t ~
i ~ J ~
~!' ~ ~ :
\
~ ~ ~!
~-~~i!!
~ :: ! \ .. 0: l
o !HH:~
z ":'.;,;:
~ jjl!ii~
llJ '00"3"8
.J . i:J
tJ
U\
o ui~
6 Z,
w"t
- :J G
~ ~:Jq
o >...
d) ~t ~
.,. eQd)~ -.
O""w:
.. Q (f~ ~ ..
m::3>xa.:::
\} IlJJ~~'!'
~ \!t'tlQ~ ~
'" E(1) _
~ uijOlu :!
n:
J
~
-:t
:.tt
~
---------.--,
:I .1'1. ~O.DOS _
, \
-~.~-.,.........~..~-., ,
H'
i.
liO
l'
oJ
o
a-
a-
~.
~
."
- ~ ..
!:~~~
~HJ:~1 .~ j
'::'1)0,:\
a~~~ 4". i
- ... ~ ..
-- fj~~
~o
~i~~E . .
~ ;t~~;J
:>I~.
~
~j
~. r~
t'~
!
i;;~i
~f',.s
'II'
m
~O("8
<.~;
.,~g~
:\-..-,.~
" -' ";.,}
d ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .
Q) .... t::
~:i ::: j
l."" ; '" ;;
, <.:.J ] .::' ~
~~]~
i:r) ~ ~
~ 0:
i.: .
. ,
12\;,
~~j
~ Q !f
, .
.l., "
if"" 'l
'iY.!'.~-,,- J _ _ _ __
(f)
z
o
i=
0...
Cl
o
(f)
w
o
o
ill
(f)
o
0...
o
Ci
Q..
;; ';:!:'
~s.~
~ i j
: s ~
~ ! ~
. ~ .
~ ~ :
~ " .,
~ . ..
. 1 8
~ ;
t 5 i
m a: ~
, " -
...J ~: i
~ &!:
Cl ~l~
~ ~n
~ Ii It;
%~~
~ ; {
';; ~ ~
l ~ >
~ '; ~. '2
\
! ~.. ~ !
i ~nn
o ii~q.:&
z -. ~ 1 "'" 0$.
ill HHHi
<.9 ~~QI:IQ~Q
~ .OO~p8~
\j
p~
'i!
~ & .
<fa-S
: ~ i
ill i.. s
o ~ = ~
~ ~ : .
(l ;~s
8 , _
: s j
- ~ ~ ::
i ~ ~ ~
l ~ l J
~
,(\
U ~~
~ w-t
0)' ::30
Z ~::q
~ ~~ ~
.fOd)':
j, 0 l~ ~ :.'
!O~>xn.~
T< tr"ww:R
" cD ..J..J .
~ \1~~~ ~
g. ui~(jiG ~
d:
.~
.....i~d
~
~
:t
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,...
;.
~
~
~
~
~
.0
c
-.
l
~~.~. ..
~
,~"~",\,,,,;~<,~'I:: - ~."; f,j.
.;..~~::;.~ --:.'
i~~!
'.
.t.,':.>
~l~1:
~ .~
~e.
~
. . ...i..c:::L :".c/2
.,'~o..:~' ~~:"::.t~,
~ .'2 <1Z
~ 'f'"
g~~
c~1 !
-SJ...
i~i ~
j~~ ~
:5 f'~
~!t ~
.2 gt -
~-
f .,,~ 0
ibj J 0
'OJ].s ~
~ f~~ ~~
] .g
~J~I oi
Is
i u.s'~ .. J I~
:E~:g
Ii] ::I 0 c:>
bG c.. c: GJ I I eJ e
g g of oS
. u 8.] ~ xxi
~l5
bO ~~ JJ~
01 u
F'Ot:!3
I
e-
o
., ~
E~~
-060\
G) a,-
1'0 0 ~
to_OO
e-~.?;>
~ G) ;;>
~o...,
c
'I
o
u
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
ri; !~A!~; e:, Lake 1',;i!?Al!l ,
L :/, ':~" .,i' XI'! ) /,0/ \":it~.
,,' "",J?'\I "":>: :'\;r.::~:/; i~'''i ,,!
~..[N;"j; L..,." ,,' co: ' ceo, . "Ii '/,; ,';?'" J
I X-';', ';:iii;~:~\ !1i 'i;:':, ., j;l,;' "X,L
,:I,,,. iii' ,! "i" ";:"'! ,.\' Iiu~)}t;'L(:$Y';p "'"
~, i'"Ui,~\" ,c,i;lf"1 "i\i:LVi,.,g;,,,. '.i"
.:1) .:: I ill IG,I~ :i'i','rli +it'~ ...P ,"..': ':~,; i i I
" 'i, ~f< .ce' ~i;""i':r L" ,il:1 ili:li:'
I '1"'-: JJ"H T. ~,c'l
I :", [,' .",'.',': ,," i; ,', ;1"\'~ou~~.aD!J!'":1
1 I, ';< ),;,:1 S 'l~~':,:;;f "~"" ,,,;;,,;,1,'.'.; 1 .- I' "!!',{t:
'i1 I ",,' iii'.:; ',' 'liiJl \;~:;','" ''';''('''''''.\! Beniii!II\ I;:'):;'!,'I,',:: I I ~~' ,
"",-"",)1",/,"" ,11- III':,' .'. .1 "1'1':i',""""uj Lake, ~ ,: ';:0':;,1;,
I I _II .; ,j\:C.",,::tilli'i':"!" ,I"~ '~c<i;;',', e ~'~"'Uj:ri";;; .,';,:1,
,,' , '7:: L, "'1511'i(~i',<, ':c~:J.L,," :",,:~.L,I.l"L i"/Ji!h'i;;' ii, "ii:"'"
I ,..,u.".,."e,,'C'. Wi ","):~:,I"''',!iI; i ,'L'.:', !J,:,':>:".,.
' "'";'\' ,~t,"",'I' "lfll:.~.=,:.j;. ",I '-':,:., .
~". 0 -,-,./: .1_ j ~',i'L,' ,'. "'IHtt::W '",'.. .' .
";~\) , "I, "I,,"i,I;/,J'i}""f'i ", ,11iI"L n ,
",J,:L~,c~ ,"',., I "'.' ,H,:':i::Gi,,: ~:',I!' 1,I:rl','~,',t,:;I~~il~~:,~~~~~R~~
'. r":,~",,~, '~;,t:tl:t:": L. ! i,! ::,::,'c' 11"1"1' \1,,1 ,,', I )1" .J,i
l :'I'i: .;,....:: II " 1 ,,'.. !I, Iii d ;, :n.;;', " I" "," 1 I'!""'" ,
"-uL/ r .,~~. C',',,;'>,:l~. '\' ""':' i" :,,~ J i r-,: Ji.l' "."l:,~ L" 'T'rl J,', ,'\C:,,:,t .....
". L',:, ',:I'II'IIU,;:",I.!"'" " li'~ ~,I,,1-IL:'I: ,""'::#~"i~"1 ~ , "','>'.,' ",
"i'I"I,{_':,;:..I'<,:":1;;--'I-,,:,J-_,,"iIII:,.:J'-,"_/;':)~~,~id :.' I'll -t-;I [1 I I ;-
;' I ,I II., '~I" .,,'cd, 1-7!'I-,,:,t':'_')\~:C~:-lh+f~..l~ ':' Z :1 1.1".. I _ ',.51__
ROB.LAWN 'A~.L' ",. c.., ;''''n,'',"',L".L~ .. ""'I,E~: :'1 ~! ", .~ I
~~~~NP:~cl'.of 1 ','II'" ,~ I,:! ~ [I ;~,
Current Flag Lots D~~t 1~ ' ' II' I ~,J '! :,i~
Flag Lot LARPENTEUR AVE
__ Other Parcels Based on parcei8 with average 10' widJh Ie.r8 than 40 feet
Lakes ond parcel area greater .hCOlll.ooo squorefeet.
~!: I I
, ; t1(Jf:\'~ i.' :
'~:/!'" _";;i""1I"
'"',I',':': ,j,' '.'~ I,',
, 'I' i:i l' r I.
- ,,'~,-,"
COUNTY ROAD D
" ',,~:Ic ,
;/';;:/
0'/:
,~:>/'.
/)
"I'
/( !
I _COUNTY _ ROAD _ _C'
-- '---. - --"
!I - ~ ~ ~
l/"" a
j, ,
!!: 'I.
'I~ .'1
:U_L.>--
,I I
"j
/
I.. ..'1
:1./'-)',-
-"{/
,"/ ' ,I
I: ,
:.',~,', 'j
'i./' .,'l_COUNTY j, RO.&b _ B i,
I
I[!!!
~' .
-COUN-ri -ROAD D -- -~-
.,'if\ \
COUNTY:IRO~..';C2 ~
_J,~~__co_utn:(_ ~OAD __c
I'
I'
i':~
/r~ !
:~ ':
'u.
I I,
-
1 'I i
1'1'
, I
: I
"
,))(~' ,! J
/;/ :1
'!.'Iii'Ji'II. '. ,I
i/'ifIV _ :.:'
,./-- COUNty_~;ROAD,1 BI
'JI1;
~ ~ 1 +:T
I[!!!
[]
, ,
I'
.:;
,',
ROSELAWN AVE
-----
! ' I' ,:;\_ I~/&'~J~,,_'::),"I~~I' I m Im_~i~"
~~r,7F;H~,:1' I~(i. ') '.i. I~ '(X. I. :];?\\' I,~, ~ /"'., Ji .: '.' I .i
, , ~ ,I ,ci'-'fi"'~~1 1\1.;; 11t cUi .'. ?~~" M ii, I
I ~ I I .. \.'. _h ~T~' Ie' :i:':'!I'~:C' ,+ " ...P ..... 3",) '^",~!~' I,:r"
'I' 1 11 I ~. ~;:/~:E"I"~'i .Ii ".,ri.':~lCc i\ ",\'(;.1"
LI ;'J",;" <~<\]!j':::~d~]I~~[ KF'5":e:;;' 'Ii'
i i. "~..,,.<;,. ,,!-~\,.1-, [::! 0 Ji,1 '
:0r;~ij1!i'\ . '. I\IL ",,',~,l(~~-~'i'[ I; A:'fl I 1'.0' :,
ii'" I . l' ";;i+T~; .T: 1 'Iii I' \-q,/';;;;
,-::/r51l'(;:i\t~,,'C~t!;';!;B It.:c,:u'''' \;:,;,";~ If' .... ""Ii
"~~.JI ii',' '''i~;~i~;:~;~~;ll~n,j~v'c b.
.]'" I' ",[11,1:, [U]"L
.?/','E'i" 'i,,;;(jl.:C .:'. i~i"1,:,~1 1,_1., /e, ,~:'iJl,;,.j"jil~1
I.;,','J ::;p;:\ ;f1II,;!i\;~~"; ,',1,1'1111>
l-~., ~~.~~!!L II~"~I; ~ .J."~l
[:~'IUTI. "jJl'I;~[m d,:~l1,,! 9 'I ", . ~,I;, "
: " :h:;!,~7~:"", >Jr.i':'!\~~;ll~l, I: I '
',] ;!IF "'.;':~~ . Jc~. ' .
CityZonlng Numberof ;iii,J" -PI; I;!j{ ';,i
De81gnation Paree" II i:j 1 O! .\\\ !
R1 242 c-: i;"1 ~ I L:',
D ~acant 3~ I"!;:!;' ii! 01~il ,)1'(: I
Flag Lot
~
,:I:E~/
~~'
[J J!
;'
'/' .;'-
~,,~>~~,.
I
"
, ,?
-~-,
Potential Flag Lots
The City of
~~
Minnesota
-- .~.-
, Other Parcels
Lakes
LARPENTEUR AVE
Bosed "" parcels with average /01 width greater than /35 feet
ond parcel area gret1Iet' ''"'''22.000 lquorefeet.
"Flag LoI8" are generally defined as single family Iota which have veT}' little (30 to 40 feet)
offi'ontage on a public road system, but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet-or more).
The main portion of the lot, where the house is constructed. is generally set back 100 feet
or more ftom Ihe public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
July 8,1999
o 1000 2000 3000 Feet A
, N
So......,
"""""" County GIS Bue Mop 01/99
""""""County_lOX _ 02J97
-city ofRoseY:ille GIS
J<6 ~~ u
@}fl~
J{~~~r
D~
~ ~r~
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
DISCUSSION/DIRECTION
DATE: 07/14/99
ITEM NO:
Department Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section:
PRESENTATIONS
PROPOSALS FOR FLAG LOT ORDINANCE (PF3133)
1.0 BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1999, the Roseville City Council considered the request by Seth Eggessa regarding a
variance and lot split on property located at 1992 Cleveland A venue. The City Council's action,
in essence, directed staff to work with the City Attorney and Mr. Eggessa to eliminate the
number of variances being requested for the site and to review potential impacts created by
flag lots.
2.0 AL TERNA TIVES REVIEWED
Since the City Council's action, staff developed a list of five potential actions the City could
pursue. These were presented to the Council on June 26, 1999. The Council asked for further
work on alternative 2.2.
2.1 Interim Use Permit - Based on Mr. Eggessa's statements to staff, Planning
Commission and City Council, the City could issue an interim use permit (Section
1012.09) that limits the number of years the existing home is allowed to be located on the
subject lot. The permit could be approved for any time duration, such as 5, 7 or 10 years
in length and would allow the proposed structure to be constructed and the existing home
to be removed at the end of the permit period. Once removed the parcel would be
brought into conformity.
2.2 Flag lots - This proposal requires a text amendment to the zoning ordinance related to lot
size and configurations to allow creation of flag lots under certain circumstances. Staff
could research language from other metropolitan cities and provide the Council with a
draft text amendment for their consideration. Should the Council agree with the proposed
text amendment, staff would forward the proposed modification to the Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation.
2.3 Accessory Apartments - This proposal also requires research and a text amendment to
the zoning ordinance to allow separate apartment houses on single family residential
parcels under certain circumstances. Staff could research how other cities address
accessory apartments/homes that are utilized by a member of the principal owner family.
2.4 Grant a Variance - Staff can pursue modifications in the proposal presented to the
Council on May 24 to eliminate all variances except one for lot width on the proposed
PF3 118 - Planning Commission (071499) Page I of 2
new parcel. This proposal would require the finding of hardship and acceptance by the
Council of the creation of a flag lot (no modification in the zoning ordinance would be
required). The existing home would still be considered a pre-existing non-confonning
use do to its side yard setback infraction; however, the lot would be conforming to the
City Code. .
2.5 Deny the Request - The City Council has the option to deny the request should they
conclude that the above options are unacceptable.
3.0 DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL 6/26/99
The Council requested further work and discussion of alternative 2, Flag Lots, and requested the staff
to draft an ordinance which would allow for the use of flag lots on sites where the size and frontage
would allow for 2 or more homes at a density of 4 or less homes per acre (11,000 s.f. lots or
greater). Staff has reviewed the possible number of flag lots that could be create and found that there
are approximately 250 parcels in the city with 135 feet of frontage and over 22,000 s.f. in area. Not
all of these parcels are developable for additional flag lots because of the location of existing
structures each site. Further mapped infonnation will be available at Planning Commission meeting.
4.0 SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should review the alternatives listed above and the attached draft flag lot
ordinance, and provide comments and recommendations to the City Council for the work session
on July 19, 1999. No formal ordinance decision is sought at this time.
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Q:\ComDev\Planning Files\PF3133\PC-FlagLot(07l499).doc
PF3118 - Planning Commission (071499) Page 2 of 2
. . .., ,. ,'- ~,.' ~ - .~....-.. -''1' '.
...... r
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Secti'ons 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. Because the City of Roseville has few remaining undeveloped
parcels, there is a need to provide methods to subdivide remaining large, undeveloped low
density parcels to accommodate additional development. One method of providing for this
development is by creating "flag lots". The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a
definition fora "flag lot" and establish a process for the review of proposed subdivisions
that include "flag lots".
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) IS hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the minimum frontage or lot
width on a public right-of-way specified in the City Code. The lot width does not allow for
construction of the principal structure at the minimum required front setback line, requiring
an extended driveway to reach an area large enough for the principal structure. The lot has
more than the required lot depth and area for the zoning district in which it is located.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel into 2
buildable lots with the following conditions:
1. The flag lot shall have frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
2. The frontage shall be a minimum of 40% of the required lot frontage for the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. The flag lot shall have a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width,
_ constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles.
4. The flag lot shall be assessed for improvements based on frontage or area but
shall be no more than the equivalent to a standard non-corner lot.
5. The minimum structure setback from any existing adjoining principal structure
shall be thirty (30) feet.
6. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and must minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
1
or ,; ",,,,,_~f"_
impact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee may
consider the proposed or possible placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
air conditioners, and lighting.
7. The proposed flag lot and minor subdivision shall not require installation of
additional public utilities. Service connections to City systems shall be the
responsibility of the owner I applicant.
8. The principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
9. The flag lot shall be reviewed by the Development Review Committee, and may
be approved with terms and conditions.
10. The certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security in an
amount and form acceptabl~ to the City to ensure compliance with any terms
and conditions of approval.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby amended
by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this
day of July, 1999.
Daniel G. Wall, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
Approved as to Form and Content
City Attorney
Date
Q:\Planning Files\3133_FlagLots\Ordinance RPCA(071499).doc
2
.
r".
.
~
e .
~
.
e ~ rJl .
QJ
0
-.. 0 ~
~ 0
~ u
~ 0 0
~ .
~ . .......
~ = .: ~ ~
--
QJ ~ ~ QJ ~
~ ~ ~
~ e: II .
.. .-
= 00 ~ 0 ~
rJl
~ = ~ ~ 0
= 0 '-" = rJl ~ ...... .
:::
rJl .- Ofj ~ ()
.- ,-
.- rJl ~ :::
~ ..... ~ = 0 c...
.- QJ QJ QJ "".
',-,
u .-
~ ~ ;. ~ ~ ~ () .
u ....... >
0 .- ()
= ~ ....... 0
~ = N .- 0()
0 ~ = ~ >.
......
..... ~ ~ :::
U ~ QJ ~ C ::; .
0 ,-
U ;. ~ :::
~ ;. QJ ,-
..... .- rJl :::
""
rJl QJ ~ QJ .: v
0 ~ Ofj .: u
otJ QJ ~ ()
~ .: ~ ~ ~ '" -
~ 0 '" >
Q. ~ ~ '-" ()
~ = ~ f.
~ e = 0
~ ~ 0 a:::
= ~ QJ 0 0
~ ~ ~ .-
~ ~ ~ ~
QJ ~ .- ;.
;.
00 ~ QJ 0 ~ ~ 0
0 0() Q.
QJ ~ ~ ~ U
~ QJ
00 ~ ~ QJ ~ = CJ'.
0 0 = ~ CJ'.
~ .- CJ'.
~ 0 ~ ~ -
0 ~ QJ 6 r--
~ 0 ~ I' ~ rJl 01
~ ()
I I I I I L
,-
~ :::
()
......
c...
()
. (/)
. . .
.
If':
.
Ofj
\I'l ~ ~ =
.-
Of) u ~ ~ .- .
~ ;...
~ = =
~ = = ~
~ = ~
~ .- ~ ~
~ ~
Q. ~ 0 ~ .- ~ .
~ ~ U
aJ ....... ~ ~
aJ 0
~ == 0', 0 ~ u .......
Ofj~ .-
= 0', ....... ~ .
~ ~ 0', ~ =~
= .- ~ u .- ~ =
,..... ...... = = ~ ~ -' .
.- c
~ ~ ~ ~ . .- ~ 0
= 0 = ,-
= = ~ C
~ C:..
~ 0 .~ .- ,-
.....,
~ ~ .- ~ Ofj ......
0 ~ .- ....... 0 .
~ ....... ~ = >
= 0
= e ;... ~ .- 0
.... 0 ~ = 0 ~ >.
0 0 -'
~ ~ = 0 .~ = C .
~ ::;
~ .- ....... ~ .- ,-
\I'l ~ ~ ....... ~ C
,-
\I'l ~ e u u c
~ .""'
Of) ~~ .- ....,
.- 0 ~ U
~ e rIJ ~ e ~= "Q 0
-
,..... ~ 0 0 e ~ = >
~ e 0
= ;... U ~ :r.
,-
~ .- ~ ....,
~ ~ er::
~ 0 ~ ~ N ~
U ~ .-
aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ofj
\I'l ~ ~ ;... =
....... ~ ~
0 Of) ....... ....... ....... Ofj 0
Q. = ~ .- = ~ =
= e 0 .- ~
0 .- ~ ....... ~
= Ofj "Q ~ = = (J'\
~ ....... .:J'-
.. = ....... :J'-
~ = ~ = .- 0 0 0 -
~ < 0Cl ~ U ~ Z r-
,..... 01
,..... aJ I I I ()
~ ~ I L
,-
C
()
-'
C:..
. . . . 0
VJ
.
\0
.. .
" 0
..
0 " OIJ
= = .
." 0
,--, ~ .. .-
~ .- ~
~ =
~ rI1 0 .-
~ rI1 ~
~ ~ .
~ 8 = ." .-
'-' .. u = ,..=
0 ..
QJ 8 rI1 0 0 0
~ " .- .- .. .
= 0 . ~ rI1 ." ~
. rI1
~ U . .. .- OIJ
= .. Q ~ 8 = ~ -'
u ~ .
~ .- ,..= 8 .- .- ()
.- r-
,..= ~ ~ ,..= ~ ~
~ c..
.. ~ 0 .. 0 ~ 0 0
:. rI1 ~ ~ 0 ~ ()
8 u > .
0 = OIJ = ()
~ 0
0 ~ ~ I OIJ >-..
= 0 = -'
.... .- = .-
.... = = ~ ~ ~ .
0 0 ::J
.- r-
~ ~ ~ .- = ~
~ I = r-
-< rI1 r-
= :5
OIJ OIJ rI1 ~ 0 u
OJ) = = ~ ~ ~ .- ()
~ rIJ ~ ~ ~ -
~ .- .- .-
~ ~ ~ ~ u >
~ ()
~ ~ .- ~ :/.
~ = ~ ~ = ,.....
0 .. '-"
~ ~ .. ~
= 0 ~ = .-
~ .. .. ~
0 ~ ~ ~
QJ ~ ~ ~ ,..= rI1
U rI1 rI1 U ~
rI1 .. .. 0 ~ = rI1 0
0 = = ~ . .- .- ~
QJ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OIJ Q"\
0 ~ ~ Q"\
~ ~ = = ~ ~ Q"\
:. .- 0 0 ~ -
\IJ ~ ~ rI1 ~
~ == == ~ ~ ~ r--
\IJ rJJ. rJJ. 0)
0 ()
I I I I I I .D
~ r-
C
()
"5..
()
. (/)
. . .
Attachment
FLAG LOT CREATION SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
CON
PRO 1. Creates a parcel which is non-
conforming to adjoining parcels.
2. Reduces neighborhood open space
1. Follows Comprehensive Plan and may invade back yard privacy of
policies to use land, roads and adjoining parcels.
utilities efficiently.
3. May reduce value of adjoining
2. Reduces street frontage necessary parcels who count on "open" space
for lots - more efficiently uses as a benefit of living in that location.
existing streets.
4. May disrupt natural drainage ways.
3. Adds new single family housing,
children and possibly value to the lot 5. May add a large house "out of
and neighborhood. character" with adjoining properties.
4. May create "unique" new lots and 6. Adds additional impervious surface
more diversity of sizes and shapes. (driveways) to neighborhood.
5. Reduces land costs attached to 7. Makes flag lot subdivision too simple
small house on rarge lot. with little public input.
6. Requires no new sewer, water, road 8. Regulations do not guarantee
system. residential design and materials
compatibility.
7. Makes flag lot subdivision a simple
administrative process. 9. Adds construction disruptions.
Q:\Planning Files\3133flag Lots
Ordinance\pro _ con092799.doc
___ _.__ . ~,.27.
_.:~ - "_" _ ~~Ykik~~~~i.j_~~:;-'~~~-~_._______...____.._
~- ~---- __h' ~fPP~.s-~~_.~-~, - ~- -----~-
~,,___.... _ . "'K'''~ ... '_._ {~_ _C!~~ J~~~__.~ ~~lit___.__ .___._._
- tu 't~n .:A . -O-~." ~ ~ ~
.._.___._______-n_._~.'L..~ ~c,__.___~~- -J --._.___ ._~--.,~.-.._=,._-_-..
_.__00__.._ .~._. H ._.~...____~l_.~Ji~-)/.l~.I___
) . -41.dtf2 ~
.. _. m._~t _' 'H~~'~'_'~ ....... _... .
______3. . . _. _ _ .. ~~ ~~_L_______ _ __ ____
._____5) ~~~..-~-~1J---
-- -- ~- _.__cM-L_~ -'1-- _f"~XJ;o_ --... -.-
---------_._-
..- _."r O"~"-,
'...~~--"'.....::- ,,-
...~."'--.~-_.-.- -_.,--.
~.-.....--~..- -~.....+~... .,.-"'...- -.........------
---- - -... ,..-
_ __~. -___-_"___.,-..__.____..........-_____~. :...;..o;.--._--...._...".______~
..------ --..._._---~._------~
~--.--~..~--~--~-iu0~~~~..~ -_~~-_.-----
._n_~_:::_: .:::.-_:.-~.__=:-~~~ ~~~.:
..._ .~~~" _..~_LW!.__._..~_ k_~--.-_- _
~. I -.b ~..,._~
.--..-.-.--.----.- ---.--.-------.-Q l~~-
-~
._-.,,--~. -- .--'.--._- .--
-- ._---------- -"'---
. -- --.-----,----..- ,~ -~
_... 0&._> ._ . _.. ... _>_
.....-.--.--". ,...-,' -- -.
--.~~-...._......-,-
------,.--....-- --
. -.----- -..~- .- -""- ~
-- --..- - --
~~__u)o__~ ,~",'_
.....---.............-..--.. -- ._,- --------------.--.....-,-.. .---;"--.
.-'" -_._----~-_.-
_..-_._---- .__. ---
. ----_.- .......'_.
._____..o:..'"W"...-'_.-___ ___ _~,..___ _____ '._. ~._._..__'.. _ .'<_._
... ...- .- ~.-'-
._-~-.' .-..-...----- ..-
,,--+-- ---_.._-----~---- ~.. -_..~_.
-.,..." -'.,...~ .=-..-~........... .'-
-.- -." _.- ....._._.~ ....--_.- ---. ~""'---- -~"'--'- -"-. _.. .'. ---, -- ..-,~
- -'-~ -,- - -.- ~-.
~ -..-_ .......-_~____. .. ._"...... .,.~. ..~-,- -=0.. .-.:._.-___"-,- __ .~" -_ "'_'.... ____ _____ _.... '~""'L
'. ._-,.,..__.-0=_......__ J'._____. -__
.---- ---.-------.-.------ -- -- '
..,..- __=ou. _...... .-._..... _. .__________.. _ ~ _ _____..--""- ___~._
--------------.-.--------,. -- .
~ ;:-0..,,-"...,,-.............-. ....."..._,_ .. _...
~- .-'<.~ .~. '" -""'.-+
--=>T~'~""_
.._ -... .______.______.J'.
-""'''"-''_' .- - ... ..~.~ '--,_ -0. ........
.--.. ._. r _oc--,..u.c._' ___...__.__________._k_-
~_.""':'---.._-;- -'- ~ _... - --_. -.....-----.--.- .---.~
- -... ---_.~--_._- -----~ - -- --- ,
.'W_ ._... ...,--._=-
--....,..,=-- -....-.---.........----,-- -~._,-.,.._.,""'~-~ .-.--~ ,..........., .~ ''''-~,.''- "~"'--_#_- -
-,'-----,..--
.....=c:-"._.""._.___,.._
---~... -----.- -_.~.__.- -
-. --------------------- -.-.--.....-------
.. ---... - - -- "".....~_....--,....._..-,-~ -_...-...._.""-------.--- .....------- -..
..__...."--::.::;. ~.."...-=-.__=,...'-~_ '-.L-. __....._ ~,______~__......__._._____.________ ____ _..__ __._~.__.....
-c.,...,._..;...;....~~__ ~_ --......~--....:., ~-,,-"=~= -<::"'"... --'-..- ~ .__--""",'"
.'~ .'t. _,," ..... _.
-_ .-__ __ _.____ __~i__... __~_. ___.,
.~
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a definition for
a "flag lot" and establish the conditions under which flag lots may be created. Flag lots
will provide the City of Roseville with a method to permit, where appropriate, additional
development on large underdeveloped lots.
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) is hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot that has less than the minimum frontage and/or
lot width on an existing street or public street or right-of-way per Section 1103.06 Al and Bl of
the City Code. A flag lot is too narrow to allow for construction of the principal structure at
the minimum required front setback line, but has an extended driveway reaching an area large
enough for the principal structure that meets all minimum standards ofthe Section 1004.02D
of the City Code. Flag lots are only allowed in the Rl, Single Family Residential District.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel or lot
into two (2) buildable lots as defined in Section 1101.02 of the City Code. A flag lot may be
created where the following conditions are met:
1. The flag lot has frontage on and'physical access to a public right of way.
2. The flag lot has a minimum frontage of 40% of the required lot width indicated
in the R-1, Single Family Residential District and the adjoining lot from which
the flag lot is being created will remain a legal conforming lot meeting all
applicable requirements of Section 1004.02D of the City Code.
3. The flag lot has a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width, constructed in
accordance with City Code.
1
------ I
q, f5 ,
a~~ ~~[)
~Qi4L ~ "r
~~0J~
Ivt.-t~ /)cr-C/f(")I,
tl'v'Q
4.
The minimum structure setback from all property lines shall meet the
requirements of Section 1004.02D of the City Code or the proposed principal oL- ~)~7
structure shall be a minimum of 30 feet from any existing adjoining principal ~ c'lt-
s ructure, whichever is greater. . ~
~ FJ'lvo....,;r y~J:' 1.1..o'(~ PIr Cov>rfj)nO'~ /~P1r pt:J-.,...r&_ fit::: iAAs-
t-<<;>..,. .JJtr'T........~ 7ff~ ~~frT.~O...... ~ P"-r__IC..rP ~7:
. . gdesign, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and ~/..oPfo 1.-1':""
ny accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
ommittee and shall minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
pact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee may
onsider the proposed or alternative placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
reas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
ditioners, and lighting.
'\
7.
'he proposed flag lot may not be created if said lot requires the extension of
ublic utility systems (watermain, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer). Service
fonnections to City systems shall be the responsibility of the owner/applicant.
1I-~'tP, I.A..,-I t,...1 r trr) ~H ,l;).t.-~ b~ D --- 5 P'fr~ '-or
'he principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow ~
or further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining pr~
qecomes available. A - - ~... . ~
\/D rp .....y~6}"..........
l.-.Or ...... v ~ I V/T
A certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the 7~ .t:u P "1) ?;
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security in an
amount and form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance. with any terms
and conditions of approval.-:1. ~7/fl-:..~ .$. u ,..~~r~ .J
~~~Dlpt' ~,.y t::-dr5...
In addition to meeting all the requirements set out above, the Development
Review Committee may recommend additional terms and conditions for City
Council approval.
8.
9.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby
amended by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this
day of October 1999.
Q:\Planning Files\3133]lag Lots Ordinance\Revised Ordinance.doc
2
.- -----~-- - --- - .- - . ~ ,-- ------
Oc.. i:-I~ ~C!.-
~~-~
Srv\~~ - 5ic. ~~
Clut: -)j, - ~
~. . -A - t1
10. ( . o,;~:Jfq'~q.~
Q)NttV".~~~ ....
- ~~~----
---------------\J. ... ,
.. -----..-..---.---. --_.....-~._-_.__.-. - .._---~-----
,
,
,
,
<
<
" .'
,
,
.<
<
,
, .'
,
.. <
<
.'
,
,
"
.'
. ,
, ,
, .'
. , .
, <
.'
.. ,
,
, ,
,
.'
,
! <
.'
r ,
.
, ,
.
,
<
,
<
,
"
<
,
,
J
,
,
,
,
,
(
,
!
... .. . . .. ~ ....
,
,
,
(
.'
...~ .."'-~~----_.:."'...-......:~..._----------
.. ~ . '. .. ..
(.
i
,
,
,
.
"""--
VP3133
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14,1999
RE: PROPOSED FLAG LOT ORDINANCE
A general discussion was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues
1) Eggessa - with no provision for two dwellings on a lot (an interim use would help this); 2) flag
lots may be acceptable but could also present compatibility problems for future Planning
Commission members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa variance) would be better than a
new flag lot code provision.
Member Olson objected to the purpose of the proposed ordinance. There is no problem with large
lots. Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because of reduced
open space and odd building placement.
Member Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and land uses on the site including car storage
with flag lot front yard adjacent to back yards - incompatible and.could change water drainage.
The flag lots are not restricted to R-1 zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with sunlight in
winter.
Member Cunningham noted that an existing house set far back from the street at present could
create an opportunity for a new regular lot in front - in effect, creating flag lots.
Member Wilke explained that each flag lot should stand on its own merits and be reviewed
individually.
Chair Klausing noted there may not be a direct cause and effect when creating a flag lot. There are
situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development of
existing open space elsewhere in the city or metro area - it would then make sense to develop the
lot.
Member Cunningham explained that the flag lot ordinance would allow Eggessa's old house to
remain.
Member Mulder stated the flag lot ordinance should not be adopted simply to solve Mr. Eggessa's
problem.
Thomas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how they are used to fill in voids in low-
density areas where up to four units per acre are allowed.
Member Mulder said flag lots in ~ developments work better than trying to introduce such new
flag lots among existing residential lots.
Chair Klausing liked the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use of land. This ordinance may
not be the tool - other options could be looked at.
Member Olson explained the areas currently lived in should he retained as large lot livable areas _
these large lots add to the quality oflife in the first ring suburbs.
Member Egli expressed concerns with large lot, land use and setback conflicts. Are there house
identification numbers from the street (fire issue)?
Member Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners. The ordinance should not tie the
hands of future generations. Each situation should be looked at individually on merits. Member
Mulder would like to see flag lots as a CUP with conditions. This would allow each lot to stand on
its merits with conditions. (general consensus)
Member Olson explained that interim uses may also be a better approach, especially for Eggessa.
Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc
I ""
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. Secti
fll
- -~/Z.~/'f'Jt
...
~~Ql\ ftu,~ -
ccess Drives and Access ~""baA~ -:'ho.J ~ ~_
-all districts access drivesshali not be placed closer than five (5) feet to an~ear
lot line; nor closer than three (3) feet to any single~ or two-family residence; nor closer than five (5)
feet to any multiple-family building or conmerci.al building, with the following exception: In RT and R-2
Districts no access drive setbacks. shall be required. (Amendment) . .
2. 'Access drives .onto State or County 'Roads shall require written approval from the State or County
Engineer. This permit shall be acquired prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Engineer
shall determine the appropriate location, size, and-design of such access drives and may limit the number
of access drives in the interest of public safety and efficient traffic flow. The Engineer may refer the
request for an access drive permit onto a State or County road to the Planning Commission for their comment.
3. Access drives to principal structures which traverse wooded, steep, or open field areas shall be
constru~ted and maintained to a width and base material depth sufficient to support access. by emergency
vehicles. (See "Construction on Slopes." Section 24-72.7) All proposed access drives with a proposed
slope of more than 10 percent shall be referred to the Fire Inspector and the Police Chief who shall each
prepare a written review of the proposed access drive with regard to accessibility for emergency vehicles.
This report shall be incorporated into.a review by the City Engineer or Building Official on the proposed
access drive's compliance with accepted community access drive standards. (Amendment)
4. Driveway/Accessway Standards
Single-Family Detached
Commercial/Multi-Family
8 feet vertical ri sei n .
.100 horizontal feet
a. Slopes
10 feet'verti ca 1 ri se in
100 horizontal feet
b. Width
10 feet.driveway base or
as approved by the City
Engineer
c. Pavement
Strength
10 feet driveway base,
vegetation cleared to 8
feet on each side of
driveway centerline
Capabable or supporting emergency fire or other
heavy vehicles.
5. All lots or parcels shall hav~ direct adequate physical access for emergency vehicles along
the frontage of the lot or parcel from either in existing dedicated public roadway, or an existing
private roadway approved by the City Council.
. In addition to the required, direct physical access along the frontage of the lot or parcel
to the app' ved 'public or private roadway. a lot or parcel ,may have private easement access drives to
the lot er jacent lots or parcels. .
Secti
vate roads'may be utilized iri Planned Developments. and Cluster Developments..provided:
a. Ownership and maintenance of said roads shall be the ,responsibility of the Homeowners
Associ ation. .',
'b. Said road design shall, meet or exceed the City standards for private roads including
travel by emergency vehicles.
-;; ,
c. Said road right-of-way shall be platted as an outlot in the final plat. and shall meet
or exceed the right-of-way requirements for an equivalent public road in the City.
d. The Homeowners'Association shall: establish' a' formal. written prOcedure for petitioning
City take-over of said road. The Association shall provide written evidence that at
least ninety percent (90%) of the voting members of the Association approved the
transfer of road responsibilities to the City.
e. The City and the Homeowners Association shall establish an assessment procedure for all
abutting, benefiting land in case public dedication and/or upgrading of the previously
existing private road is officially petitioned for by the Homeowners Association.
f. An easement is granted to the City by the Association, which allows the City to use
the road and road right-of-way for any reasonable public purpose including. but not
limited to travel by emergency vehicles and installation of public utilities and con~
veni ences . \ ' " , '". .
. ; , , ' .. . ,.~ .
2. Private roads shall not. connect two (2) or:more exis~ing-or proposed public roads or road
right-of-ways.
- .
, 3. Private roadway systems within Cluster Developments of Planned Unit Developments shall pro-
vide access to the public. community road system only and shall not connect with private roads of
-61-
'.
I
..
ether developments without the .formal written approval of each Homeowners Association and the
Ci ty Counci 1.
4. Before final approval is given for a .private road by the City Council the Homeowners Assoc-
iation shall grant the City an option to acquire the full right-of-way otherwise required by the City
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for public road purposes along the entire length of such private
road. at such time as the City Council in its sole discretion. determines that it is in the public .
interest to acquire the road without any cost to the City. '
Section 24-77 Tennis Oourts
I
't
I
~- ""I ~..."
I
1. In all districts. the fol10win~ standards shall apply:
a. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for all semi-public. public. or commercial.
tennis courts. A Certificate of Compliance shall be required for all private tennis '
courts.
I
b. An application for a Conditional Use Permit or a Certificate of Compliance shall include
a site plan showing: . . .
The size, shape. and pavement and sub-pavement materials. the location of the coort.
.-the location of the house. garage. fencing. septic systems. and any other structural
improvements on the lot. the location of structures on all adjacent lots. a grading
plan showing all revised drainage patterns and finished elevations at the fo~r corners
of the court, landscaping and.turf protection around the court. location of existing
and proposed exterior wiring and lighting facillties.
c. Tennis courts shall not be located closer than ten (10). feet on any or rear lot line.
Tennis courts shall not be located within any required front yard.
I
I
I
d. Tennis Courts shall not be located over underground utility lines of any type, nor
shall any court be located within any private or public utjlity, walkway, drainage.
or other easement.
I
e. Solid Tennis Court Practice Walls shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. A build-
ing permit shall be required for said walls. Said walls shall be set back a minimum of
thirty (30) feet from any lot line.
f. Chain link fencing surrounding the tennis court may extend up to ten. (10) feet in
height above the. tennis court surface elevation.
I
Section 24-78 Vegetative Cutting
(Amendment)
I
1. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions are made:
Clear cutting shall be d~fined as the removal of all l.ive healthy vegetation in excess of
six (6) inches in diameter at breast height on any area of one (1) acre or more in size.
Selective cutting shall be defined as the removal of not more than fifty' percent (50%) of
the single scattered live trees or shrubs in excess of six (6) inches in diameter at breast
height. or all cutting within fifty (50) feet of the principal structure.
clear cutting of vegetation shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
3. Selective tree cutting may occur .on any' lot.
4. Any cutting. as qefined in 24-78 la and lb above. on slopes of greater than eighteen percent
(18%) shall require the completion of a Soil Conservation ,Service Re-Vegetation Plan and
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
a.
b.
2. All
I
I
I
I
I
1. . se of the varied terrain. severe slopes and erodible soils within the City, lot shapes
may be created with flexibility to adapt to the above conditions. Said lots may allow construction
of housing on the more buildable sites within a subdivision which normally could not be reached from
existing frontages. City Council approval shall be required for all flag lots. '
-62-
I
I
-
- .
I
,.
2. For the purposes of this Ordinance and the City of Red Wing Subdivision Ordinance; flag
lots shall have the following:
a. Limited frontage but not less than thirty (30) feet on a publicly dedicated right-of-
way; there shall be no other frontage for said lot.
b. An access drive, paved and constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency
vehicles (fire trucks) to within fifty (50) feet of the structure. Said access-drive
shall be as straight and level as possible.
c. Said access drive shall conform to the requirements of Section 24-75 of this Ordinance
and shall not be on a parcel of land less than thirty (30) feet wide. This access
shall be maintained as landscaped yard similar to adjacent properties.
d. Said lot shall have a lot width at the building setback line of at least ninety (90)
feet.
e. Said lot shall meet all other area, size, and setback requirements of the zoning dis-
trict in which it is located.
f. Auxiliary pumps and utility support equipment necessary to make said lot buildable
shall be the responsibility of the owner and shall be approved by the City Engineer.
g. No building permit shall be issued if the above requirements cannot be met.
3. Assessments for street improvements and utilities for flag lots shall be determined on a
frontage plus lot area basis or as approved by the City Engineer and City Council.
4. All flag lots shall require a Conditional Use Permit and a public hearing or shall be
approved within a new plat.
5. Each flag lot as approyed by the City Council shall provide space for no more than one
(1) dwelling unit.
DIVISION 5 PERMITS, AMENDMENTS, APPEALS AND VARIANCES
Section 24-80 Conditional Use Permits
1. The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit in any district provided the proposed
use is designated in Section 24-35 of this Ordinance as a Conditional Use for the district, upon
finding that:
a. Certain conditions as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance exist;
b. The use or development conforms to the comprehensive land use plan of the community;
c. Is compatible with the existing neighborhood;
d. It is understood that, if approved, the Conditional Use Permit attached to the land and
not the owner or use of said land unless otherwise specified by the City Council.
2. T~~ling Administrator shall maintain a record of all applications for and all Conditional
Use Permits issued including information of the use, location, condition imposed by the City, time
limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate.
3. Application. Application for Conditional Use Permit shall be filed with the Zoning Adminis-
trator. The application shall be accompanied by development plans for the proposed use showing such
information as may be reasonably required by the Administrator, including but not limited to those
things listed below. Such plans shall contain sufficient information as listed below for the City
to determine whether the proposed development will meet all applicable development standards and
whether sai d project is subject to a mandatory or an opti onal envi ronmental assessment statement as
stipulated in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board regulations and in Section 24-90 of this Or-
dinance.
a. Site plan drawn to scale showing parcel and building dimensions.
b. Location of all buildings and their size, including square footage.
c. Curb cuts, driveways, access roads, parking spaces, off-street loading areas, and side-
walks.
-63-
,
Code).
8. The conditional use permit shall expire within six months of the date of
City Council approval if a building permit is not obtained for the approved
development (Section 1013.03 of the City Code).
9. The applicant ~md!or underlying property O't:ner shall gr~mt an access
easement along the 'J.~estern edge of the property to the City in order to
provide a public access from County Road B south to the McDonald's
property shall cooperate with the City in efforts to develop an access
easement along the western edge of commercial properties in this area
from McDonald's north to County Road B.
General discussion ensued regarding the access to the site and the rear
accessway.
Motion carried 6-0.
6c. Planning File 2983. Max DeFlorian Estate, a request for a variance to
reduce the lot width to 79.7 feet and to reduce the lot area to 8,911 square
feet for the purpose of subdividing an existing residential parcel into two
parcels (964 County Road B West).
Chairperson Wietecki opened the hearing and noted that two letters had been
received in opposition to the lot split (Wyendts, Fitzgerald, Sobon). Chairperson
Wieteck asked City Planner Kim Lee to provide a summary of the proposed lot
split.
Chairperson Wietecki asked if the lot split is in line with adjoining lot splits.
City Planner Kim Lee explained the sewer utility extension needed for this site.
She explained the deferred assessments on the site. Dedication of additional
right of way is requested on the north and south sides of the lot. Staff
recommended approval with conditions as follows:
1. A sanitary sewer utility servicing plan for the existing house must be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, and the relocation of the
service line must be accomplished prior to the lot split being finalized by
the City and recorded.
2. Additional right-of-way easements/dedications for County Road B (10
feet) and Burke Avenue (15 feet) must be dedicated prior to the lot split
being finalized by the City and recorded.
11
3. The deferred assessment of $1 ,345.09 must be paid prior to recording the
lot split.
Chairperson Wietecki asked for details of lot widths to east and west of this site.
To the east, lots with a width of 65 feet would have to be combined to allow
buildable sites (3 lots combined to create two lots).
John Michels concurred with the staff report and reported the widths of the
adjoining lots. With a lot having 47' in the rear yard, the rear lot lines would
align. In 1993 OeFlorian paid an assessment for sewer and water extension to
the site.
Comments:
Jim Danner, 958 W Cty Rd B, owns the lots to the east, opposes the subdivision
of the lot. In 1975 a variance on the DeFlorian site was denied.
Brian Fitzgerald, lives on the lot to the west of the DeFlorian site, opposes the lot
split, recommending that there should be open space to the east. The value of
their property would be decreased by another house.
Colleen Danner, 958 W. County Road B, stated in 1975 that the Council assured
the neighbors no variance would be granted. She opposed the variance.
No further comments were offered; Chairperson Wietecki closed the hearing.
Chairperson Wietecki asked for details on the lot split denied at Dale and Alta
Vista. A general discussion ensued.
Member Mulder stated he would support the proposal if only one variance was
requested. There is no unique need to grant a variance.
Motion: Member Mulder moved, Member Rhody seconded, to recommend
denial of the subdivision and variance request based on the following amended
findings offered by Member Mulder:
1) The proposed variance from the lot area and width requirements is
not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Title 10 of the City Code (Zoning).
Variances from both the minimum lot width and the minimum lot
area would be needed. and the resultina lot would not be
compatible with the neiahborhood.
2) The proposed variance from the lot area and width requirements, if
granted, will Rat adversely affect the public health, safety, or
12
general welfare.
Motion carried 6-0.
6d. Planning File 2984. Tammy Jenkins (St. Francis Animal & Bird Hospital), a
request for a variance to reduce the rear yeard setback to zero feet and the
side yard setback to zero feet for the purpose of replacing an existing
attached accessory steel building with an addition to the principal building
(1227 Larpenteur Avenue West).
Chairperson Wietecki opened the hearing and requested City Planner Kim Lee
to summarize the staff report of February 11, 1998.
Kim Lee explained the setbacks and existing land uses surrounding the site.
The steel lean-to would be removed and a year-round building addition would be
constructed. This appears to be the only area for expansion; the drainage from
the new building must be diverted to the green areas.
Staff findings recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. A gutter and downspout must be used to direct the flow of roof run-off to
the green area on the south side of the building. Drainage cannot be
directed to adjacent properties to the north or west.
2. Construction easements will be required from the adjacent property
owners in order to remove the existing steel building and construct the
addition.
3. The north and west walls of the addition must be fire rated walls with no
openings (windows or doors).
Chairperson Wietecki asked if materials will be the same and the roof line will be
extended to look the same.
Tammy Jenkins concurred with the staff report.
Member Mulder asked if there will be footings (yes). There will be no increase in
impervious surface.
There being no further comments Chairperson Wietecki closed the hearing.
Motion: Member Harms moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend
approval of the request for a variance to reduce the side yard setback to zero
feet and the rear yard setback to zero feet for the purpose of replacing an
existing 6' x 32' attached accessory steel building with 7.5' x 37' addition to the
13
stated they have a large investment in the existing building. If the existing
building were vacated, only a cabinet shop or a residence would be possible on
this site. There will be no more exterior noise.
Chairperson Wietecki stated that 1-1 zone would allow for any industrial use.
Can the City look at areas larger than one site - from "D" to the industrial area?
Roseville does not spot zone. Look at what the best use along all of Cleveland
would be.
Member Harms noted that a succeeding use (such as stamping) could occur
which would be a problem in the future.
Member Rhody stated that this is a transitional area; spot zoning is not an
adequate solution. By planning and with time, this can be managed. Member
Rhody asked if the Community Development Department can find another site.
Member Harms asked if TIF or land swaps are available for this site. Scheier
noted he has met with builders in Lino Lakes and New Brighton and has
estimates for new buildings.
Member Harms asked what the City could do to help to find a solution in this
location. The City must have time.
Scheier asked the Planning Commission to consider adding the parcel to the
PUD of Centre Pointe.
Chairperson Wietecki noted that a change in the Comprehensive Plan will
require time, hearings, a PUD and review by Metro Council.
Dennis Welsch suggested alternatives:
1. A rezoning as requested;
2. A neighborhood plan and a Comprehensive Plan change;
3. A PUD and a transitional use;
4. A sale and move to another site;
5. A trade and move to another site.
General discussion ensued.
7c. Planning File 2987. Sketch Plan Review, tom Scanlon - Proposed
subdivision of property at 2120 Cleveland Avenue North
City Planner Kim Lee presented an overview of the Scanlon proposal. Dan
Gleason, Architect, provided background on three Scanlon proposals, noting the
owner's request to subdivide a one acre lot into four lots.
Chairperson Wietecki noted that flag lots are not acceptable in Roseville.
15
Member Harms stated this neighborhood is made up of large lots; this proposal
is not consistent with the neighborhood.
Chairperson Wietecki and Member Harms recommended against flag lots. Look
to the propery to the southeast for access. Propose a three-lot subdivision with
a cul-de-sac. A general discussion of private roads ensued.
7a. 1-35W Corridor Coalition Report (Carol Swenson, University of Minnesota,
Design Center)
Bill Morrish and Carol Swenson discussed the interjurisdictional coalition
planning definition and benefits. There has been growth outward and change
inward. How does Roseville link up to it partners? How do County roads link
and yet reduce the pass-through traffic? Look at socio and economic
demographics and how to do multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning
together. What can the coalition do with County roads renamed as "streets and
places"; instead of Lexington Avenue - could it be Roseville's Lexington Parkway
with adjoining Cornerstones?
The seven cities might be able to frame the comprehensive planning at the
subregional level - there may be problems that can be solved jointly rather than
individually. Subregional strategies such as housing affects us all.
Redevelopment is an important development for each and all communities and
keep jobs, housing and people in the corridor. The cities will look at the
infrastructure and bundled re-investment. What does welfare-to-work mean in
the design of industrial areas? How can industrial areas add open space? Can
industrial areas be multi-use?
In March the seven City Commission representatives will meet jointly to develop
a planning frame work.
8a. Discussion of Home Occupation Regulations. Deferred.
8b. Discussion of Religious Institutions in Business Districts.
Received and concurred with the staff report stating churches in shopping center
have been accepted, but churches in commercial sites is not a permitted use.
8c. Receive annual report - Ramsey County Household Hazardous Waste
Program
Placed on Consent.
16
CITY OF ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14,1994
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Cynthia Thomas called the Planning Commission Meeting of December 14,
1994, to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City ofRoseville, City Council Chambers.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Council:
Wall, Thomas, Rengel, Sandstrom
Wietecki, Roberts, Harms
Aune, Falk, Jopke, Welsch
Mastel
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion: Member Wall, seconded by Member Rengel moved to approve the Minutes of
the November 9, 1994 meeting.
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Wall, Thomas, Rengel,
Nays: None
Abstained: Sandstrom
4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: None.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
6. PUBLICHEARTNGS:
6. (a) Planning File 2717: Mary C. Woessner request for preliminary and final plat
approval on a 1.23 acre site at 925 W. County Road B.
Chairperson Cynthia Thomas opened the public hearing and requested Michael Falk to
provide a background report on the Mary Woessner request for preliminary plat at 925 W.
County Road B.
Michael Falk reviewed the proposal to create two lots on the Milton Street cul-de-sac.
The City does not have a proVision in the ordinance regarding flag lots but has considered
1
them in the past when no other alternative exists. Michael Falk provided a review of
adjoining properties and noted that, together, the adjoining properties could create better
and more normal size lots. Siting of houses on flag lots creates "view" problems and
utility extension higher costs. He showed a 3 lot subdivision, each meeting the minimum
lot size requirements, noting it was more efficient and of higher lot value. The cul-de-sac
has 6 utility services, 3 of which would serve this site. If approved as flag lots, the sewer
would have to have clean-outs and the water line oversized.
The Woessner proposal creates a 73 foot wide lot and a 30 foot wide flag lot at the cul-
de-sac.
Staff recommended that the combining of adjacent parcels into 3 lots makes more sense
and value.
Member Wall asked for length of utility services on the cul-de-sac. Member Sandstrom
asked if there was a variance in the subdivision. Was a hardship necessary? Falk stated
that the subdivision, if approved, would also approve a variance. Member Sandstrom
asked ifflag lots were a concern to the Fire Department. Falk stated they prefer standard
lots but can serve flag lots.
Tom Woessner, representing Mary Woessner, noted a distinction of the Woessner parcel
is that Mary Woessner lives on the lot now. There is a need to subdivide. Three lots will
provide a reasonable value for the lots and negotiations with the neighbor. The parcel to
the west is 80 feet in width. Three lots to the east is a flag lot. A 22,000 sq. ft. lot would
be attractive to some buyers.
Member Wall asked for clarification regarding the 3 lots within the Woessner parcel.
Cliff Lund, 2241 N. Milton, owner of the parcel east of the Woessner parcel, stated he
was in favor of resubdividing the Woessner and Lund parcels into 3 lots.
Barry O'Meara, property owner to the west, stated this design (with the flag lot) is not a
good design for the cul-de-sac. O'Meara would like to see where the houses would be
located on the flag lot and adjacent to it. The flag lot driveway may be an intrusion to the
adjoining houses. By cooperating with Lund, O'Meara feels the cul-de-sac lots would be
more usable.
Chairperson Thomas closed the public hearing.
Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Rengel, to recommend denial of
proposed flag lot design and variances within preliminary and final plat. The cul-de-sac
design with 3 lots on the street would be more usable and have more value.
2
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Wall, Rengel, Sandstrom, Thomas
Nays: None
6. (b) Plannin& File 2718: Norbert Anderson request for a division of a platted lot at
2096 Lexington Avenue.
Chairperson Thomas opened the hearing.
Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Rengel, recommended continuation
of Norbert Anderson's request for a division ofa platted lot at 2096 Lexington Avenue to
the January 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion to continue failed on a 2 to 2 vote. Member Rengel asked if the applicant
needs to be at the meeting? (Although it is generally assumed an applicant will be present,
there is nothing in the City code that requires the applicant to be present).
Motion: Member Wall moved, seconded by Member , recommended denial of
Norbert Anderson's request for division ofa platted lot at 2096 Lexington Avenue.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Chairperson Thomas asked that Michael Falk provide a background report illustrating the
proposal to develop a 12,683 sq. ft. lot. Sewer and water would be required from Parker
Avenue. There are no variances necessary. The lots are flat and graded for housing.
Staff recommended approval. There were no questions or comments from the public.
Chairperson Thomas closed the public hearing.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion: Member Sandstrom moved, seconded by Member Rengel, to recommend
approval of Norbert Anderson's request for division of a platted lot at 2096 Lexington
Avenue as per the staff report.
Roll Call:
Ayes:
Rengel, Sandstrom, Thomas
Nays: Wall
7. OTHER ACTIONS:
(a) Dennis Welsch summarized activities the Commission had dealt with in 1994
(including the Comprehensive Plan meetings) and thanked the Commission for its time
and perseverance.
3
City of RoseviUe Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1994
by the Planning Commission. He noted that at the April meeting, the
Commission decided that they did not want to create islands of different uses.
He asked the Commission where does this type of change stop?
John Daubney commended Chainnan Wietecki on the handling of the public
hearing.
Jim Helberg stated that someone will build on these vacant sites in the future.
Dick Houk expressed concern about private rights versus public rights as it
relates to land use designations.
Pat Igo spoke in favor of new projects throughout the community.
(b) Planning File(s) 2641 and 2642
James Westby and the Vietnamese Buddhist Association have requested
vacation of right-of-way at 475 Minnesota Avenue, and Westby has
requested a rezoning from Rl to R2 and a division of a platted lot at 480
Lovell Avenue.
Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing and requested City
Planner Michael Falk to provide a background report.
Michael Falk provided a background report in which he described a proposal
to subdivide one lot and to vacate an existing roadway easement to allow for
two developable lots and a proposal to allow for one duplex on one of those
new lots for Mr. Westby's mother-in-law and her sister. The proposed
vacation is on property that was originally acquired in 1967 by the City as an
easement for possible future streets. No streets have occurred on this site .
and, in fact, a single-family residence blocks access to Minnesota Avenue on
the south. The lot, which is proposed to be subdivided, is currently 28,000
square feet in size and would be broken into two lots, each larger than the Rl
lot size of 11,000 sq. ft.
7
City of RoseviIle . Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1994
The staff recommended: (1) vacation of the street easement, (2) subdivision
of the 28,000 square foot lot into two separate lots, and (3) approval of an R2
duplex zoning on the lot adjacent to the RoWand/Concordia Meadows
Planned Unit Development to allow a duplex to be constructed at this site.
Member Sandstrom asked if the property to the east could be divided into a
flag lot and expressed concern about such flag lots. Michael FaIk responded
that the code requires at least a 30 foot frontage on an existing road for a flag
lot. He noted that the developer has no plans for a flag lot at this time.
Jim Westby, 480 Lovell, stated that the Buddhist Temple prefers not to have
a street but would prefer more greenery in the area. Westby does not plan
another house behind the existing house and therefore no flag lot would be
proposed.
Chainnan Wietecki asked for comments from the public. There were none.
Chainnan Wietecki read letters from Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, 2360
Cohansey, who are opposed to the rezoning, and a letter from the Concordia
Meadows Home Owners' Association, who are in support of the project.
Chainnan Wietecki closed the public hearing.
Member Hanns asked if there was some way to restrict access to the rear of
the Westby lot. Member Thomas asked about the need for easement. She
expressed concern about the green space to the east of Concordia, which was
to be used as a buffer between the single-family areas east of Concordia, and
the villas themselves. She stated that to change one of the single-family lots
into a duplex would be a change in the concept approved by and with the
neighborhood at the time Concordia was approved. Chairman Wietecki
stated that he agreed with Member Thomas and would oppose a zoning
change to R2.
8
City of Roseville Planning' Commission Minutes
May 11, 1994
Member Wall stated that, for the record, only the neighbor (Hernandez) has
expressed opposition to the change to an R2 lot. He would support all three
recommendations of the staff.
Member Thomas asked for clarification regarding the buffer between the
Rottland Villa Townhomes in the Concordia Meadows Project and the single-
family area. Member Sandstrom asked for criteria for an R2 zone. Chairman
Wietecki explained that City policy is to allow an R2 duplex lot to be spot
zoned anywhere within an Rl district. Member Roberts stated he was in
agreement with the vacation of the right-of-way easement and in agreement
with the subdivision into two lots but would oppose a rezoniJ?g to R2.
MOTION~ Member Thomas moved, seconded by Member Roberts, to
recommend approval of the vacation of right-of-way easements and the
subdivision of a 28,000 square foot lot into two lots each exceeding 13,000
square feet in size along Lovell Avenue as per the staff recommendation.
Roll call: Ayes:
Sandstrom, Rengel, Thomas, Wall, Wietecki,
Harms, Roberts
Nayes: None.
MOTION; Member Wall moved, seconded by Member Rengel, to
recommend that the western lot of the previously recommended subdivision
be rezoned from Rl to R2 to allow for one duplex to be constructed on the
western of the two lots. Member Rengel stated that the scale between the
single-family and the duplex is minor and it is reasonable use of the site.
Roll call: Ayes:
Wall, Rengel
Nayes:
Thomas, Sandstrom, Roberts, Wietecki, Harms.
9
Planning Commission Minutes
S~teDlberI3.1995
units adjacent to this parking lot.
5) There should be some method of reducing the blowing snow and trash which moves
from northwest to southeast across the parking lot.
Ray Geiger explained that the church will completely re-landscape the site and add a barrier
strip along the parking lot to reduce the traffic problems.
Member Wietecki asked if there was a date certain when the building will be removed. Mr.
Newquist stated that construction will being in February of 1996 with the occupancy of the
church in September of 1996. Then, remodeling will occur in the existing building
beginning in the spring of 1997, with the temporary buildings to be removed by September
1, 1997.
Bob Beshenski asked why not finish the east end of the parking area with finished curb and
gutter and put the youth center in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Geiger responded that
the east end of the project site will be finished with curb and gutter as soon as the project
begins.
There was no further public comment. Chairman Keith Wietecki closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Member Harms moved, seconded by Member Wietecki, to recoinmend approval
of Case 2786, Calvary Baptist Church, to allow for a 10 ft. height variance to allow the
building to be built to a total height of 40 ft. noting the acoustical and site location of the
organ hardships, and expressing the neighborhood concerns regarding parking, storm water
along Burke, and a need for complete landscaping plan along the east edge to be completed
in the initial stage of reconstruction, and landscaping within the parking lot to soften the sea
of asphalt.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Thein, Sandstrom, Harms, Cunningham, Rhody, Wietecki
Nayes: None
6.
(e)
Planning- File 2787: Angeline Seidenkranz's request for preliminary and final
plat approval between 1763 and 1805 Roselawn Avenue.
Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing and requested the planning staff to
provide a background report. Summer Planning Assistant, Rick Jaehnert, reviewed the case
noting that the property currently is 1.77 acres in 1 parcel and is zoned Rl, single-family.
The applicant is requesting a subdivision of the parcel into 3 single-family lots. Each of the
lots would be over 23,000 sq. ft. in size. The normal lot size is 11,000 sq. ft. Each of the lots
would be 78.33 ft. in width. The normal lot width is 85 ft. The nearby lots to the east are
13
Planning Commission Minutes
Se,ptember 13. 1995
66 ft. in width. There is a 20 ft. wide sanitary sewer easement that runs in an east-west
direction across the property. No building can be built on this sewer easement.
Engineering staffhas reviewed the project and noted that an additional assessment for 110t
would be required. Curb and gutter on the site will have to be removed for new driveways.
Permits will be needed from Ramsey County. There is a 20 ft. east-west sanitary sewer
easement. Any grading of this sanitary sewer easement area must be approved by the city
prior to beginning work. There is only one water service located on the west end of the
proposed lot. Two new water services will have to be constructed to serve the new homes.
The planning staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat for the 3 lot subdivision
located at 1775 Roselawn Avenue for Angeline Seidenkranz.
Hugo Bloomgren, 1805 Roselawn, stated he had no problem backing out onto Roselawn
Avenue from driveways adjoining Roselawn.
Roy Rinardi, 1800 Ryan Avenue, asked that if the lots are sold, how will the sewer line that
crosses the site be flushed out. Chairman Wietecki asked the planning staff to review this
with the engineering staff. Michael Falk responded that it is possible to clean the sewer line
out from Fairview Avenue.
There were no further public comments. Chairman Keith Wietecki closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Chairman Wietecki moved, seconded by Member Harms, to recommend
preliminary plat approval for the Seidenkranz's parcel subject to the engineering staff
conditions.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Thein, Sandstrom, Harms, Cunningham, Rhody, Wietecki
Nayes: None
6.
(t)
Planning File 2788: Mark Bowser request for a division of a platted lot 1055
West Shryer Avenue.
Chairman Keith Wietecki opened the public hearing, and requested Michael Falk to provide
a background report on the Bowser case. Mr. Falk explained that the parcel is 128 ft. wide
and 298 ft. in depth. The parcel is 38,258 sq. ft. in size located in an Rl zone where the
normal lot size is 11,000 sq. ft. and 85 ft. of frontage. To subdivide the parcel, the applicant
would have to create a flagged lot. The city's code does not have provisions for flagged lots.
The city's past policy has been to consider flagged lots 'where this configuration is the only
opportunity to provide access to a developable property. In those cases, the city has required
30 ft. of width at the public street to allow for a 20 ft. wide driveway with a 5 ft. setback on
14
Planning Commission Minutes
Se.,ptember 13. 1995
either side. With this design, any siting of the home on the lot would create a front door
view facing either the side or rear of adjoining properties. To some neighbors, this presents
a concern regarding backyard privacy. The Bowser application includes a request to reduce
the 30 ft. frontage to 25 ft. with a driveway no wider than 15 ft.
The staff noted that it may be possible for neighbors adjoining the property to agree on a
development plan which would provide access to a number of the rear properties allowing
more single-family lots to face directly onto a public street. However, siting one flagged lot
with the front of the home facing away from a potential future street would limit this
opportunity .
The engineering department provided five recommendations. The recommendations are
attached in the report by the city planning staff.
The planning staff has heard from adjoining neighbors who are concerned about this issue
of privacy and premature development. The planning staff recommends denial of the request
for a division of a platted lot into a flagged lot and a second lot.
Member Sandstrom asked if the city actually could propose a new lot through the official
mapping process. The staff responded it is possible to do this; however, it is a complicated
process. Chairman Wietecki noted that the city has no official policy on flagged lots.
Mark Bowser, applicant, stated that the subdivision to the lot would raise the value of the
land in the neighborhood. He provided a copy of the county valuation and tax records.
Melanie Bowser stated that the concerns of the neighbors should be questioned, including:
1) Flag lot destroys large lot values.
2) There are other flag lots in the community.
3) No street is possible.
4) The lots on the north side of the open space on Parker include a wet land which
would hinder further development.
Justa Jackson, 1051 Shryer, stated her concerns were that the back yard is a thickly wooded
area and that any development would destroy the wildlife areas.
Pete Weber, 1026 Shryer, stated he supported the flagged lot.
Bob Beshenski, 1040 Parker, stated that flagged lots with multiple driveways could surround
individual homes and create islands of homes. He stated he preferred to wait to see whether
15
Planning Commission Minutes
SeJ)tember 13. 1995
an entire area could be developed at one time.
Keith Paulson, 1010 Shryer, stated he had no conflict with the proposed flagged lot.
Bill Visler, 1022 Parker, asked if this sets a precedent that when the first house is built there
will be additional opportunities throughout this large lot area which could be detrimental to
the area.
Justa Jackson, 1051 Shryer, stated that she preferred to have large private lots with open
space and not see another house. She stated that taxes will increase in the area, and yet, they
will have lost value. A privacy fence would be needed along all of these long driveways.
She stated this would start a trend which would devalue the property. The issue to her is
privacy and the desire to not have a driveway adjacent to her house.
There was no further comment. Chairman Keith Wietecki closed the public hearing.
Member Harms stated that flagged lots, in the past, have not impacted adjoining neighbors.
This project would create more driveways on Shryer and these lots were originally bought
because of their size and open space.
Member Sandstrom stated he was opposed to the use of flagged lots, because the city has no
standards for such flagged lots and that if one is to be approved it should be approved as a
variance. There is no variance in this case. He stated this sets a poor pattern of development
for the remainder of the area.
MOTION: Chairman Wietecki moved, seconded by Member Sandstrom, to recommend
denial of the Bowser request for a flagged lot and further recommended to the city council
and manager to establish a moratorium on flagged lots during which time standards for
flagged lots should be investigated and adopted.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Thein, Sandstrom, Harms, Cunningham., Rhody, Wietecki
Nayes: None
MOTION: Member Harms moved, seconded by Member Sandstrom to reconsider the
motion approving L&R Automotive's request for conditional use permit for automotive
repair business at 3011 Rice Street. (public Hearing 6(a) on the September 13th Agenda).
The purpose of the motion would be to clarify the Owasso access and state that, as a
condition of the conditional use permit, no access or egress would be allow onto South
Owasso Boulevard, and that all accesses for the automotive repair operation would have to
be taken from Rice Street. Chairman Wietecki stated there was no traffic or safety problem
16
.
c::::==
~
~
.
.
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
L
I
1
1
1
I
I
-----I
}- :
w I
> :
~ :
J I
to :
I
J1. :
l"'\. ~ d I
'-.J g~~~1
~ " ~ ~ I
W t",~~~1
,'-1 -; . ~ I
.c ~ .! I
-"-- 'Qi <:.d '" I
.- CI')"Z ~f.O I
<[ ~.\! I
U :
J1. :
1
I-- I i
I ; " .
lK :' ',1:"itf~~~~~',~i,i
_ au - - _1- - -, . ~~i::}~L i~;;E~~;fi5~~~~~ ;i
U I '~"I:~d~"~i!"';s9"'~'P:;~-""
i_ 'L~.f:~1r~~~~!:~~~~~~!~~~!~.~~.~~r~'~~*~'~
.,
,
.;
~
[f;)
c=::::>
o
fu0Ji
99'''1
-.--.....--,--
a,,"I.fJo.OOS ~""
I
(
c' t
!~~l!
~~~ ~~
a E:s t.s
.!:!~'g~:
.c: "0 O"C 0
~ [.~ ~ ~
HH~
~;, tct: WI
~ ~!i~
_~EoS
!
~
~
'~J
.~.'!:!
~.
E~
.~
p-
f~j
"a~t
g:~
H2
t!~
J!g
I.;;n
"rr.-rr
1.1'
g~u
~S~~
o(~;;~
3~~~
~~
o
z
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
CY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
(Y
0...
t.... oj
~~;
~ - ~
~ i J
t ~ ~
s'Q i
~p
~ ~ '
<1: ~; ~
-1 5 ~ i
~ ~q
ex: ~ '0 "
~ :! ~
~8~
a... ...
i ~ i
- ~ . ~
is j ...
hd
~ ~ ~
, ~ ~
~, ~
~~~
~ - .
d~
: ~ ~
~ ~ i
CD ~. .
-' .... ~ ~
ill s. 'i
o ~! ~
~ n:!
a.i~!
Q~~f
~ :. .
. i P
~ S .! 8
f:'Q~::
j .... ]
~ '6 1 i
~ ~:i. c: i
h.dn
o ii~HH
z~~:ltd
~ U1Un
..J .oolle"@
:J
t:3 '
i ,I ~~
['j I-
. "
1J
o .~
~ ~~
w..t
<I)' ;:) -
z. m~ ~
o )11\ 8
d) <Ii"
2 1: g
... fO(j')' r-
:;, 0 g,~ ~ :
II) ::J~z-
\j ll",xn.;1:
q) ,di~~ ~
~ \'J'~ ~ u ~
u.. . '" <I)~ ~
~ UI..JiPO ~
r--
cO
o
(}\
(}\
~
.
.
.
5
~
i
"
&
~
:;
Ii
~
"
g
9
a
/
.~
c/)j)
,
.
.
}-
w
>
~
=:J
ill
IL
o
W
i-
<(
U
IL
I-
~
- --m- -
o
~ "
~ ! a N I
~ ... ~ " I
'" 'j!S t:
l~"~J,1
. ;:.:;; I
.c ; ~ I
-a; ~ :; ~ I
CI) '" ~ to !
~ ~
tf)
z
o
i=
D-
Ei
o
tf)
w
o
o
w
tf)
o
D-
o
0.l
D..
t ... 04
~~~
~ i ]
~ s ~
t 'Q .~
~p
~ 8 '
<( 8""
~ ~ :
rri ~ ~ i
o ~ d
~ ~: ~
0... ~ t ~
~~"
8 0 -
~ ; i
':; & s ~
t 1 j .
E ~ ~ 1
5 ! ~
8 ~ .
01 ~ ::
~,'O
~ : -:
~ i 8
~ ~ ~
CD ~~i
~, ~
cd .; i
OJ: ,
It ~ ..
~ q~
CL:~t
~ ... ~
8~"!
.~ ; ~ ~
~ l 1 t
~ . . g
~ '; ~ ~
~ ]
~ ~ ~!
~_~~t~:
o ~i~Hq
z -: ~ : ! :.":: ~
~ ;qjiH
w !~QQ~1~
...J .oo"p'@
r--
cD
o
0'-
0'-
~
~
,
i
~
! ~
,
f~
~ ,.
~.
, .
. v
r i'~ .
~~~~ ii-;- .
~g~~ ~~~
,JS~8 ~~; .
b~'" Q<-
h~~ ~:~ ~
"..~~ ~t~
... E {: ~
i~& 0
~~t
~~
o
z
.J
"'
~
~ 'I ~:
- ..
~. _ J
!3 I
'I
,~
~
If)
o ui~
6 Z~
W'f
d)" :J -
z rli~ r
~ ~lf) ~
zf ~
~ f~(j)' ':
.. 0 g,,, w :
'" fiZZ
1D~>x[~
~ .~ ~~ ~
~ "~I\)~~
Q)uiOQ!Q-~
It -1<110 ~
.
~
~
.
.
}-
JJI
>
~
::J
ill
IL
()
JJI
j-
<(
U
IL
I-
- ~ I
-m----I-
U
g
::; ~ ~
" . 0
~ ~ ~ ~
",,,~!::I
+ ~ a ~ ..; I
...a ] ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~ J
CI) ~ ~ ~ i
':? c-: !
I
I
J .,-'
j,=.,
~
Q
I-
0..
iY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
Co!
Q...
~ '; ~
% ~q
~ i j
... ....
. < .
~ ~ i
~p
"8 '
<l !.~
I .. ~ ":
[is:~
o t s i
~ ~ ~ ~
<1- ~ $ ~
~ ~ ~
~ s i
";: .j ~ ..,
: ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '-!
~~.ni ~~7.~~:;';; - ~I_...,.
d' r ~
;~~!~ ~ '
;~:l!~! ~
5~01Jo" ~
1)oaa.1! ....
.c. Q. ri-'! ...!
';~t~~ ~
~ ~ !~~ ~
H~~j '1 ~
~~E~S~ ~
~
,
..--!
"
I
,
,.,0=
,.~
.~'~J~4u::::' ~'
.-! : ".
":'."" 'J . . .p .' .) 0 .
:: .=' '"J'"
"
~ c '
..,) OJ
j
~
!
~
s~
~o:
~ ~
i'~
.
~ ::~~
i 0 ;~f~;
, m~
rJi'\\ - a~8
~\J- .<b~-
~,&!i5
@ r'
~,~ I
~ '''-_~ g
\{P z
c ,
iff
~g!
'j:~
1f~
Ijt
......':Ii::
.
-
g
>
~
J
~
~ ! s
1; ... ~
8 ~ .
'" ~ s
i~j
. 1 8
: } ;
~ ~ ~
CD 1;.. t
. ' .
.... "s
ill t:; i
oj;>
Cl~~~
<l " '
(L ~.,
~ ~ I '"
~ ". 0; ~
. ':;, ,
~ .. g. s
... i '.i -
i I';
. . ' .
~ ~; ~. ':
~
l ~ 3
~..f~~?~
} ~ ~ '.i ;. ~ 'l
2 !~~~!.~i
w .;;;:~O.
[B n!UH
..J..O
" e · @
o .~
~. ~~
.. 11J~
cO ::)-
z i1J~.-
~ ~UI ~
"f6~.~
.. 0 g,:; w :.
tif:)~z~
'(j (t.,xa.;g
q) .cD'1'1:11
~ "~~U ~
q)ui.,$!~'-
It -J01U ~
.0
~
~
~
.
.
}-
w
>
~
::J
ill
JL
()
lU
i-
<(
U
IL
I-
o
~ .
Cj . -
CI'j ~ ~ C'l
~ ~ ~ ~ !
!.g:g~~:
. 4:1 -,; . ~ I
~ ;I ~ I
.~~~v;1
Cr) ~ ~ to !
; ~ I
I
I
I
I
I
!
\
\
\
.~9.lt:l
:r ~;.-;;:;;;;... -1__,....
\
\
\
.
c'> t.
~ 3 ~ ~!
;~~~~
:;E.ct'.S
.. ~ -...::1
~~I~~
~[!~j
;~~~;
.:; !....-
~~: 1-'0
.;;-~ ~Q:: ..
~ ~~ ~A
~"...i "
_ ~ E tI S
I -... -J', Z.~
g G, '-'--,'~I '.; I: .:;, ; Ii'. O~
~ '=' .i........=.<-''':~ }P; .. ,:....~..O'~
S=:b- ;1 ~ ,: ~
I 1 I' ~: I'
I . CD 't
\ ;j :,6
~L
! ~
,
S.2
~ ' .
..-
, .
. . .
...."'r... ~,
...,.....,.: ~ ~
,. G' G II) ii~
r:''t'rrr
III' .
".H
;::"1:
~ 0 l' ~
i:E
~f2 6
t t ~ 0
, 0 , ~
, Q 0
2.~t
.
-!
_ _-or
b
"
...
i:
::I'
i
"
I
. #- ..
1 'Jr-r'\
i
. -:'
---.
~
(f)
z
o
i=
Q..
iY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
Q..
o
~
Q..
"i '; ~
~ ~ t
~n
i ~ ~
! ~ .i
~p
. & :
<( &. ':-
a:J ~H
u ~ ~ i
Cl ~~~
~ ;] ~
~ ~:;
: :E i
; & ~ ~
I ~ VI ..
~ ~ s 1
:;,
II}
\1
q)
...
'<I
It.
q)
d:
tI\
. 0 ui~
~ Z",:
w't
(()" ::J-
Z dJ~ r
~ ~tI\ i
zt ~
~ f Cd)' r-
o g,~ ~ :
:3 ~ z-
(l~XIl ~
,<6 ~~ ~
,,~~~ ~
ui~~u ~
iH
'0: & ~
~ I; 5
s " "Q
. - "
. " .
s i ~
~ t ~
j ~ ~
Q) ~i~
.J .:,&
Wo ~ i ~
... is ..
Cl ~ j ;::
<( ~.'
Q..~r
~ ... 0:.
&~d
a : · ,
': i ~ t
~ < · ;;
(. '; ~ ~
i j
~ ~~..J~
i . n '! ~
o:!q~'
z ! n~d
~ idiHi
w
-.J .oo"e"@
l"-
ce
o
0'
0'
~
.
,
~
i
g
I
l-
II
o
Z
,.
.
~
~
~
~
.
e
I
I
I
I
,
~" I
<:j ~ <; I
~ ~ g ~ I
~"2 ~ ~ I
~~~.~I
~ .; ::i ~ I
Ci; ~ ~ ~ f
tI1 '" c!! I
':? I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
i
\
i=--
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
Ol
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
Ci
D..
.. 'Q ~
~ s. r
~n
i ~ ~
~ g 1
~ ~ .
~ .. :
<" Q
i : ':
~ j s
~ i ~
~ ~ i
m 8: ~
.... ~...
ii:ljn
~ .1 ~
~ :q
t "'1I\i...,
a~~i
~ ; l:
":; ~ i ..;
r : . .
~ 1 ~. ~
~ i
l ~ d
~..~tt]!
J:.!"~i
o H!i!':~
~ Huu!
~ .oo"~'@
: ~i
~p
: a '
<(8'~
I : i i
w j ~ j
o ._
CI/ < . .
<{ ~ t :
Q. ~a~
s _ _
~ c i
~ J C ""i
i . j ~
E ~ II
r--
CO
o
C1'
C1'
~
~3si~
Jo; ~ - ~: ...
~E~~I ~
~ :-~vt'O ~
:~;ti~ ~
=~~ ~f~~.
H~~E~
~;E:l ,
o ;
! E';
~ r~ I!
~~ \
~:~~ - J -
I'~~~ ~i.. ;
...... .~& .
i ~~~I ~ i ! H
b;'- i:~ W
)r~~~ ~
J~
~~"- ~
,
~~-or:~O/3'.
I ,
J :
I
~I
"1
?i: I
~ i
~ I
..
~ .
~
.
~
tl)
o ui~
~ Z.
w-.r
- ::) ij
~. GI:R ~
o >."
d) ~t ~
... f o d)' x
~~w ::
50 g ~ 6~ ~
II) ",..x oft
1} ILcD~~"1
~ ~~ ~~ ~
Q 'os$!-.
q) Ill... <J1U 0-
n:
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
COUNTY ROAD D
,'I'
_ CO_UN"'" ROAD C
I I
~
,/1
! Current Flag Lots
City ZoDiDg Number of
DeslpatloD Parcels
RI 12
DVlIC811t I
Flag Lot
L, Other Parcels Baaed on poreela with average lot width leu titan 40 fed
Lakes and poreol area gl'8d1ertltan 11,000 'fJIH1'8/ed,
COUNTY ROAD D
_CO~UN"_ JJO~__C
II
1
I,
\ '
',h
I :/"
1"1'\
Jy----:\
I Y,./'
i /17 , ,I,';i"
,'f_' 'I,""
I ?,~'~: I"_)<~\ "',
: VI _, L. _C~UN#~ROADL'BI'
\ { - :1" -- . ~r1~if
. l~ " f-<b-k::
[!!i JII L
;1
/rl
\.., "
"'.,1
1,",'1
'-'iii J
[J
" 'lie ,I I
_!~Ll~~LL,_ UL'
~r. , , I 1,1, I,' "
,,'r,',~,',_J,;:2:;...,. ~---~1 , ' ~,'_ -1;;:L~~
.a I,.L N'-:,T~11 I ~!II'~lr:~l;~flf"'~\'-'~ I
III L~_"jl d ~CI:~l11,lli.Jl::L.lliJnYj:'l
,.-L' ::r~'Ll-, "Tl j~ll~1 _ }l-rl:Ll~li~~~d:,.0.'c.-:Lu_~,1
1\1\"'1 I....;~..JJ ':'i-,,;,~\L,'- :1: ,~rl';-:)_:.'r.I{//
'(' "I l~ 111"J"kL11::1~clLC'JIL";J" 'a
j:l:~_ t~ lr~l 111_ ~:ifi.:~i.[~~w~~'r' I:J:l~~t:L~~'~-2;"~
ROBELAWN AVE
[]
'I.. I
,Potential Flag Lots
City ZoDiDg Number of
DeslpatloD Parcels
RI 242
R2 3
D Vacant 31
Flag Lot
~(\'tX~
tJ. ~,v"ll
> ",II~' ,
" ~__ ,.,",,, J,,-, ~ L-__
i
;:,Iii
;11
_e I" i!
LARPENTEUR AVE
Other Parcels
Lakes
B...ed 0" _11 with """""II" 10/ width tp'MJ" thtm 1 Jj feet
<md parcel..... grea/<r titan 22,000 8fJ1H1'8ftot.
The City of
.~
Minnesota
"Flag Lob" are generally defined as single family lab which have Yety little (30 to 40 feet)
of frontage on a public road system, but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion of the lot, where the house is constructed, is generally set back 100 feet
or more &om the public street ftontage.
Prepared by:
CommUDity Development Department
July 8, 1999
So......:
'Ramoey Courtly GIS'" Map 01/99
'Ramoey Courtly properly ... data rnI97
'City ofR4sev!lIe OIS
o 1000 2000 3000 Feet A-
N
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
CO~j?;j~,I\ ;J~~~~~"'''-~~Jj~l~icY,<- ~~'~~r' lAke.-~~J:l~~.~) r" ~~ . )f0k,c- trO 0~~:1' ,'l't I
':..,./ -""/1 . Ii"',' Xc.l-U 1"(~I.t1~:!i G~I q J"I ~ tIl~ ~/-1JosephUU! / lie] jlri~Ji~/~j/~ I v~ >~W/"; I-}'i" It!
,'/ "mmyl: II~ -1r-'iI1c@~,;'ul'fY,ff:L,,-,'/~u " '\-'IB:tIi[c 'f?)ii{4!ff 70:;J-t~cd' 1~,_.,
/' II.~ Lt= - 11,~:---J: \-!<-++--.:.....J1j:P::\ 11 {.'EL..-,1:J ~ I .....,,(,' t ~- J1JJ-::::: '- "';\Cd 1" ~
!1J!;i,<9: /' '--I' It-lf\ ,- ,L!_ I" I Vg~ ,]::~-'''' g,fiifl/1r,~'!:L--'I:cJ~';;L" ~ I ,~:D,,~t~mr: Y! ';L~::TI' ; If I , II
r r ,1- -,1 11 (I (~ ~~'5~/ rq.'14?;I=hVf'~H!~'kfC ~J.+j!L;,1:rl~ /~(;f:";,ir:;l___{/ ~1 \~~g:lL:.L.1
I~/ COUN]y~'ROAJJC2 1',- I ~_L. o_h ,~'i'iJ"~ l.2i~lil'EmEJ:jlrJ,~ t?t~ "'~~_ tJ.!il1k), I \ ~- ~/ pi/D,() ,J"1L'h::IfJJdHh:
1~7;/' 'c /11 " I lll~ II'i ,i>ldJ~"I~+ 'c L~fJ Jr;'-''.:-'=L I W~!~qWT~lm~!lrnl.~~l" ~~'~Mj.~"~ \j~li'J:U
, 'I '4' "~'--iC ~ 41 I I ~ '''rt'ieJ ~ >, rc~~,r;:,,/ >Ii- "y," j~",;i;JCIJJIItt'iLIldtjt'lJjj '~'I' I
/ Iii I~la 'j , ~r~ "~~ lOr I k,LLL4 'Lltr~c iC,'tE(J i='\Jc' v \iKSi~!ffif1':n"J\' ,jPIt1!fI"I'
~~ ;1/ ~ l~-I ~ --r '::~I ; I ,-1\ 3 ~)- /J(tti:ffi !~ct,~,,~~EI;~~~iJ~ );;~~;9f~:~~~~~, fJq.l~:-!'u~: '
~!~ I /1, L<,: I H,:L -iii HI- ! II \ i:: ,"}; L tJ' !! "" j 8 T'.;Il ~q~ "- "--",::"/ ., \(JJ't "'j1c1Rlf
I I '::1, ,'!,-.LJ-!"lL-";, +,IL "c'l_ '\'J'~ ~( lR,L
U~COUtffY~D~C LdJ:\____----..;--; - ~-_:;-- =---=.:::-~~ /_~ _ b:.:w ~C~~ __=:::>- \1;___ "'^,--,-~-=-oj~~~O~~C~IW ~T :CLJ.JL-.-J I
, " I i{ ,- ,-1'\ \:i " =-l+-'-'J-~~mrfti 1: ~Cc~-,1t~TJi_ jI- it-'7. '::'~'::,"'U;... . ;JIE)~t"1 I, I,' f'~~-,~IJj J' II 'illUi,
c _c /-- i'" ~ tl1: L~~iJ;j~[t~ifj~:" ; l)qjr c,'3i"li'J~~'0g BenneU,,~ to ';\ 'I W['~o; Hij' ,
e I U1- 1/ ,_ _\ L_ F' '8 J[]J[j:J;J:JIIN'J:II 'Fi ~_J 1- <~IP}Jb~rDPbs~ i ~IIL' I J 1 ;, J -AIIiboJ'1~lTILL,:.,~
1 I ' , ", h0Jf- 'Im<->;' , jHHd~~b':B":V- ~ " ld!l,"L~",lIl' "
I y" 1- \ \~ ~ \1:1 _ ~J t f1-]1--' i':::2tt~ i1~3~~~\1rTtO'~. k"_,.....,...J-'-l~ '""')'"' vV4,~nlr;;-lUI(t1-tj~ ~ II""" '
I I;'/;, L---' I IlI[ 1---...: r L;( '-? IWV I J ~ fLL_ -' r +- ;im:f;)'"]]f,l LcUJTI1~M LHA l- j .( W ;15->
~~----L:~'/ I I I 1,' ~ ] "-!" ~,-),~ rill- IE -?WlIJjJW:O"-NT"iJ:.!!~j'82;::i"f~>",':...0:t:b&:ll~' IlliS......JJ\,::":' ~, I\L,li:.'~~~ I
IJIJ(I'" 'j \~'I I~...,.,. \' ,'~ ': 'ft:fI:UJI,'ld!2IJ1:"'~,UJ',"Ii:!;: cw"j ItJ,c,ClJ:l " [(J.'_'
I ~d'~ I L r '. /' "<: ~', _,,', ~) UJ\ )p;;.;;.,'It-, ~tf#\\lEim~,lt'l:ldIll:iI',~)3"I.rtiJll~0;", I
I II' 'L -'---'~ "_Lr.;;,:~,l) /' _L- ~I _.---/ -' '-- J -':..:'~~ H ob\L V; >-.1 4~) ft] j '-ct;;'
'JI ~ .JIJ J n 'l'TO'" 'lr f.:jr ,---""""- -r.;;'j- I 2:bILIL:.B ~::J 11:::rJ:..L::rL
.I;; ,ti ~ II Ilrl'- ~~'v:~~..., f / I ___\. -';::1- ~l.~IJJ.I..Si=-L.I.>-^ ~.~ !]:".I ~ ~,i:1 11l 1,~Jr fl.li
:d~ ',-" 'L,,' ,'L1(.~([7'J,ll'Lort' ~'(\',fltii[l:\lLJ!l\'"IillIJ~JEi'U'ji\'"ij,-10,'\\ 'LD'I/"),~yl _l__li,__~
fl-_, J ;..-:-l l, '~I' 11'/( r i . tr:?:..~ )1 ;--: I0. J~ ~lJtllf.J G ~..I \ 1 h~r~' G....J "~I ---'0- ')t;~t:lr"'-"' Li..J.,
! LLcoUNrt-'hOAl!-=-8I...: LJ' '" j'~:;\:~~~_I.-J,jjIJ[DcS LL' U.::Dlw.tC,u t'1[~~ ~[dlL~t J~L----.l,cOUN122'!c!'-Aq'll!1lit'~~ I
'r I I~F;j'-; I(~~] _ -" I 'fllir.ll!i'lbJi'.JrjL_nJnS'~~rF.!)I]:)).\'llr(:t' 'ifllll j i,l l'l'o.lef'
'I ~ +"';c 'l~[2J]CCI ~~ S!b=;.q:lti.o--'~ lElli1Ii!'~!----=~~'f~:~!'S' , "lfbjE.;q:;\ JJ~cR {,~~';' I fi~~j I ~ ,,IL"j Ie \ !
II ~ : a~' 1>1}1 '"01' Lrtb1t6fwEcb.~ I 'liBP+" c:ldbuJltcititE' I ;, I I~" I J, ~M:J;, 1 1<.g;p m --'l!'! ~ 10
/ ~~ I ? _-eLhe-- ~ r'~f~Ti~~g;~ till- ~[hU~~ !Wr.'~' k~~b~ -=L~ 11 ~~UJl~'~"> l~T:lll-t:::.JcL~~--'.I:
I /I_~' \ ITiit~~~ej:' rng,j~E.~I.""~:arnri~JlI':ffiI~c1IBI"dj'",.r~cJj:IJcflll~ JI" - I:.JJI,Wl~ F:,[.&>,~l I
]1--, - I" _\~~1t.; jj 'H;01! illf:;illJU,,"'w,i:: "Ni1rr:'j:[H:tl'.:r~;1'_~~,ir ,"81J~.j- ! 1~'lq" 1...../: -:; ',I' :.w-~ I
,cc.t!L-i:D_"':lL rrc ~,,'lId~ tiJ:::G~ 1[jl1J~1 Z_L IC ,1 ~ f ~ffiJl ~(-~ I ,;;r.. Llli~~ ,~LJ.:
ROSELAWN AVE ~~i~tfr!~~~~~j to I I i~jl'~~~~"'c~ ~ 0,," \I~'
City Zoning Nomberof ,I II'. ~~clJ I :".t~I~ I 1'1li'iaf" iliMul LC'''i:n - =-~
D"igna~~n pa;.s ~1\{~~("\~II~Irt11[i~ t ~~\~\; UJ . t + ,N1rd jfi
Current Flag Lots DVacant 1 11bill~, JU[[~----.lb~O'!~_ ~_\~~:1~
Flag Lot LARPENTEUR AVE
I Other Parcels Based on parcela willi average lot width I... than 40 feet
Lakes and parcel area greater u.", J J,OOO square feet.
COUNTI fO;:;,AU C
"= I'" J/'i' " Ii / IU" "Ji~' '("" , ,,~,~q": 'c0L . j()' 0.Lc",i0, . j,' l' c' ''i-''_.. .'c[,( '~", , "',
81./',/jJ,\{y, . /~, . ilo ,I'$'j" '~,~,;~y @cll;Ii'K/, Lake j/'-.'::qgm'j1itt1id'~t31.t""~i'.. .>->'%:fi'; .!'1~ I
l~J '. ,Z.h..'.l.\ tiN.:,'.....,.. .r('it:.:" '. j~.'.'k.'" .' .'.. V' A~. F..~.'.,F.~.'~I.! '.~.jos., .ephirre ..../ '.'.,:' 'I':~}:~.-;: '~...'~.'~.-&t.~.:';~' I c~>",.~..~j., '.}..:~..
Ln... ,.).I.i'
, d t~" l' \,1, J.... .L;" '"ill ~_~' 'Ef;]j ,'''': " !:_'- "-ff-~IHC'-&.W@ )<$,'<:": 10",10 ~,_.L..L:.JtL
r ,v l' i(/();e I~[I:., +1 .~~lh:J,lltlhiJl;j\",,\\! " j';1:S"""iI=w~?i\c;"J: ..--'-, Glt;'l~(Y~ ....'J?/';~(JtPlrf!Ift1IIj,!iiH
ip:9 ~ /' Ie A'I JI ',jl[r.i,u w,Allstfl~~)1 :;L Jf,.'t", "jrWfi''''\ ,~ilmr!1fWf:: ,<f!:/:' i f1~;:~;;~\\,\tt.::J~~
'ut tOUNTY_,ROAblc2 u.L~--.L; .JeUE i~l~y.. &'f"- Itd}aB . Ell.ci::rn"l'LL~\L~::::::lr: ,i, ,',," ;:};~~ '),,/\' ,cDL=:.JII.\H,+'IPL
I I, n. "fl. ~I ., I [i:~ :fl. ,~,.,' jcl;.ji,'ri;.'k_ I)' ~ g" _,I*~!(r-,,-m,J! I~.,. .rn,,~r,;;,fI'I..I.,JlliU1\l~.Hjl"1'!1i,iI!t:.\I!J)'/1l,' , . ,.)C. ~rQ'i5,/~/,Iz:,~,culli'-,"',Jt.W.',~.'.'.,~'
.:,if',m :
Il/I' //1-:"1 i" [' '-I'I[.,4J"I.'i~.. :~~. '~~['''''F'','''J',,''1 l.iL~, I"r, j'4ir~a-.:'.'6. ~,~.tfj, o~'~.'~ ..y M!" j.,~+~~p.;t,'.","~i~, il!tf,tt;'tit
I :,1 ,1 i ~'" ." ~~ 1- ,,! "Lc- ;, ~~"L.I1.fI~"iFL Z"lLL'1J,.,,-""c, '.L.:JJ .l,l:iIi\'.",'I''L''li>'-'I:.;1 .
'(, 17," ~ /// i~ ,j1:' T:,c'~";>'-T LI I"! \-'.-=-' ff',dJlIiB!'i::bL ...'!?'fc,;of~.;,fic!1~I~~"AJhqi,ff.II,L,'"~'f" . ~ld'.:t':JH!,i,HI;~,?'i';I.:'!t.i,II'fl1.:!iF;~.'1
'I' "', l!li "- ~[~ 'D ' iiI "Z, IHi tEtdEbtd",',J.J1""A81L'.D~J ,~ 'I-'~'" 1],1';'0*':'11" 'i ,., "'i '
i " , ii i!:( r 'I'rl~' II ~' Z ,~ ,I, t, .rr 'j z'<CJtTI"", I" J ~ . "":r"',,,-?,,,;,,,, \',' "'iFffii':f:!'L '
~_I~f?~I!!ffi'_~~JL_CJ li~~I~__--:-'b:-~_.. ;~~::,~'~ ~~~?_~";.ul _u__~t1'_ _ _~.Jc~n- '/+--~----\~/J.~~_'_':~~~~:, J~~uN~2;()~~ib~.1'~LU[lt} ,! I
:',1, : II' '/N r ': Jr' J,: ~r'crldJ ;l_-_I~1"$\o!!~ ~;."i:)~/1' ,-=,~~j(l~Wll~t~,:;-'jCl n j:;'!-,I'ij.' Id
, r,' __._,t."-ccL, cc,lr 'j '.'j'\" uc:.~l.' .1" .f. -=lrt.'~~. b!ji~I' i I, '.'..'f'o'i".'r;',"'j",/i:0';.#.dfu."""'.': .,/, . B.' enneU" ~V!.:rr."fBt"'.'l I.'.' "... ii.~.. I. .-.
...". '.'''.'.''.'
[-':I---:'~~II/'I - \ !-'~'- - .' - lo.-'j:'i"Y' I 'I '-~ ~I;' :1 --It /:cil-,U:"I-'~~~~:-1:1bJ'h- Lake 'lJL "'.iTL';-:-s<1 -"~I ' Hrs1z~l +.1: /i,Li_ _ i
"[:..'.'.".'1. 'r I. ".&,.,1. Jl--. '.\ i\f.:. 1.1 ~~,.::-,,1. ..", ., I' I." l' ~)'..')t~,'p.=.f.j.'I;.'.:f.!f"-'1.."'d.Lt .~?:~':;L '.:..'.~.q?1'I(J;J'li\,w...'.W'.:'.....'..... i.II'.
.. '.' I' .to'. .ff.'.;iiB..J~.t1.iJL'&'..,...:.lJ.'F[)j.j,:to.
t ( /J--- I -----j ~_ _ '. _ _ :~~tr~r;.,~~~~;;1S!+1~[t~~'" ~-:. %1.t1rtJ:=:i~'!i~~I~:flIJtl,e'=L[iil~~~~~}.r:;c8 - (;:i(ltJr:\jct}[:n~;T,'t(~'Tt7-/~~ i
I _~ ~:~A~ _ __. ~ '5 \ :'. I, "I;. ~ ~>-Lc, (~/~ .~:' :~-_~ lliY0_JS::1-,~g-~L~UNTi~JROA~.:':~2HIF~'1f,r .~~ULHi'~1i.J;J&y;;~.~,(~~gj\iLJ[St~I~'!~~.:"~l~.li!..
' 'IT 'lI(1' 'I n!'I. ' \. :.,-,:~,,". ,1, T',. \'.. I "}f.F.1 I Wic..JH:thillJ... '.IJJ.:Jlli::J~fI~..l0'.'.\;Cj'~"h.I.' "'.)I",IJ.".f,i~.,.".'[,"-..J::L
I I. r'i /' '.\1 }~!- _I_~ I~ ---j \; ~;', ,~)-~-'\ "I~_ .~-j/ - .~~_/) \, _ __ _< d~) ,--' '-il~;f~c-_-J~~~-0J~\~.tltL:L---1. .f.~.:;;.,.-2.;._~~-.~~r-1. ~).-1-.-, t~._~.~~~:. ' "".
\.:\.'
" ~.'j~--I~ '-',.cLr..J"; ~..l-L_!L--/ . --""~'c~liIli':ill:::'_ Iw,\.,'i!p"'("< W'H}'~,:it :X-!
'i' fE_nli1. ~ ','" / (-=-'\-.-6w:~c.;LL-Brl~":ill!J'J I'" u~ ~""-L~Tl1i.I~(II',~P', "'T
I '~~\'-'m~i+I~;;.,~.,.. f ~ ,[[j~li:lJj~, (L,1[j.tl ~.~. C~~.~~~.'irJ!1!Jfj2 \:L~; 1y fur.', 'f#&.:J) r "I'l~rit1tr;;~..~h." ...
II CCOUNU',,"ROAbJ:B. -- , ~J!~lJg[jjtLc d..L ~ffii[jjL.ti),".iliIlliiEiJit[\J~, Gii:E,c,,~t!1J!1!!'].Y,d!!!'.M",,""", ,j"-,
I \~:- p~: ~\r\~ tL_,'1~lr u 'Jd~:r~!mmfijw:~m '9!]~~~IR- :;.\.,::,,/', ,':111611:11('':'1
: II ~ =' ;Iriiyril f<rr!,~' ",' '"ffia.~~~~IJf&fmffi1rl I' If'-'j;.ilrrr:'1'~~ ,l ~.'I!~':J't:~~j"\'1 I
'I 'i ,o-LT TIU.J.I.:J7i}TJ\~~[ ~~-t~ [~~~lr'-,~~I . ::TIllz ~ ~w G~TEH6:fJ3lli~gjlrrtt~tJ I ~j jd:~--=7J=---:j ~\.;i):t\ J~~J ,ll-.. I
I /~ " "1HI5.0iJi"IE~j~me:affii.>;[!.jgj:t~r\-:l:.t,' ~ f1j1oL l.iII tHi81l1EEJ~!i;:\; ""Fl'JTIiliJ~ c I, ,! II " Um~ ~,,',I, :zr-;,' I I
I. -- IbLttlttt:EtlJ~ :\~t::~~~ L~~aj ~EjU!t'Jt~I~':i~::f:Ll"~~1'~~'J ') ~ -- l~ '.~~[ ~ ""'~I- ,2!
1 ROaELAWN AVE l"ffJrnl'!l!!fudJl:lw 1'~Wi':pr' I :.J" fo1I!L , : \ l
~ Zoning Nomber of 'c,'r(!tfJllli;Hili ~ , ." ~ijj~ ~r;:,U" J'~ : ,I .~1t ~ ~ . ,L
I Designation Parceb *"I'~"f"~I;:l:::!c,;.L~~lqJ IT! ~,to \~ ;'1 QIWlli' '':N'', I [I
,ilLJJJLl~ T:lIIIJOJI ..L -., - C r q',;j EiliHLlWL..J ..,.,/'1. __
RI 242 ff!illiiblliUklU1ItlC'Jir;iH1Cc 1 if fi' '=,\Iii,~ I I ~ I) ~~ "Iii
P · I FI L R2 3 IJI,~Hl:IJ!' ~ t ~ ,~', jCl!J, ,"~l,,";u
i otentla ag ots D ;;:~t 31 l'::'2 'U:.:J:l,-h!Ll>AVE ~c',I~!B~ :~~;_' I-,_~~ I dJ
L--.' Other Parcels Baaed on pan:eu with overoge lot width greater u.", J 35 feet
Lakes and parcel area greater than 22,()(}(J square feet.
The City of
\D[f~~
Jl.~
Minnesota
"Flag Lots" are generally defined as single family lots which haw very little (30 to 40 feet)
of frontage on a public road system. but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion oftbe lot. when:: the house is constructed, is generally set bade 100 feet
or more from the public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
July 8. 1999
Source!:
'Ramey County OIS Base Map 01/99
'Ramey County """"""""'_01J97
-city ofRo&eville GIS
o
,
1000 2000 3000 Feet
,
A
N
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
- ------------
-------
_..._--~---------,
r~ i)
,.. ~7;;:;'T' T
I I .~.'.~,~>h
)/~)\- -
l? ..;!'::!~i'!
"?~l-c'ou~l~~oAb
. n,F.
~ "
/ i
Current Flag Lots
City ZouJng Number of
Designation Parcels
Rl 12
D Vacant 1
flag Lot
Other Parcels Based o. parc:eIs with average lot width la, tlwn 40 feet
Lakes and parcel antJ gremq tlwn 11,0lIO 8flIl'lT" feet,
COUNTY ROAD D
.~.0,.~;>' ;11'''..' /.'.~!: /,'..'''...U.'I,....~. ,/1 '1'.,:.,:.'I=,'.,l"j'rW.r
' c~JiP4k ':~o/ ! r 6r rJj81liJ[J ii~r" j tif!fF /
I'R\Z,\!6 ,Ax..}/. : ("!ucBm !\:.ct,~HS:<\.J
1;~~7'Z"'.0.. ,l,o/,j '~ITD21f' ',':ic:8rJ::I: ___~
:~fl~~-:~~f;1 'j,F ~ ,)i.':1", 'r il~:I,tJ -,~-j] j-:'./~.-1;~~k.';~'i~~_~Ei'~\_.'\ -\\~.'
i liIif>;<~'> /'j " ,[-;{ i i J. Jh I i J, y",l4--lf':~8EIlL~:$'~'\', ',}
'v';,!?"',, j .,:' "!i)' ,I II( I' I, <~ 1'7'Sn!:~1i.~<YQ"/!
I'~ " COUNTY--1LROAiiL':C2' - ILl I ' '.---LJ E:~~LJ[f ~{Jt_ 13.. ':::~~
111/" //" . .' " ., -, II ; i'\, ~cj '~~.!u[>c"r. ~,t~ '..c.{ ~,
/ I~. ., I I'~""_ _ ,...."...+-.~;'I c
i I / I I ~;"'-'l:l -T;' _~;,: ~~,_~ __ ~ J 1;
. I, i ~ .' } r~ \ 1 ..~ . !r~
,\ <,I \~-_:: j,~i:f'I\~__L,___ :,\_~
_ CO~!!t'!'.Y_ IiO~D _CJ ~ ~,~ . _' '
c.ci.L1 .,.....,...Xi 1111.,
. Li~~~-"-.~__I____
I ! ,~; I
J/><';~
,;;/..,~\
~, r~'rC~Y"<\ I"
'f/ '- COU_N:ry~, ROAD.lB.. 1
~ :1':1,L ". -!. "~~.~-l.iirti\E.I~;'!, L...-;~;!:~~j!~,:J~,{~:!
" I _J _.LI\.J~'-]~'1 .~:,IHW,I.__,_~'lEj~;'rtr.r.JI~\i."........l',z
.'. ';;~'i~~:~j,~~!:'" \"~t~21~I,~1j'~?\~ltl
ROSELAWN AVE
- ~~~f~~: -
I ,.,
. Potential Flag Lots
City Zoning Number of
Designation Parcels
Rl 242
R2 3
D Vacant 31
flag Lot
Other Parcels
Lalres
LARPENTEUR AVE
Balled on parcels with average lot width greater thon 135 feet
and pal'CeI area greater thtm 22,000 3qr<<1T1! feet.
The City of
.~
Minnesota
"Flag Lots" are generally defined as single family lots which have very little (30 to 40 feet)
offtontage on a public road system, but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion of the lot, where the house is constructed, is generally set back 100 feet
or more from the public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
July 8, 1999
So"....:
_County GIS .........0[191
_County"""""''''''_02N7
"City ofRD8eYiDe GIS
1000 2000 3000 Feet
A
N
.
~
~
!
.
.
.,
.'
,
.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~" I
tJ ~ -
III ~ g ~ I
::: '" ~ " I
"'... ~ !::
!."'a~J,1
. ~ - '" I
.c ! ~ 'f
~ ~:g ~ j
Ct) C\l = (,Q I
; ~ I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
@)
c=::>
o
~i
99"lrl!
- ,
3:';;0-:0;;'" ""~..'"
I
t
ti6~
=t-== -'
... .-. ..... R
i
.
I" .
(f)
Z
o
i=
0...
(Y
o
(f)
w
o
fD
(f)
o
0...
o
(Y
Q..
t.... 01"
ii~~
~ ' ~
~ ~ i
~ t .
~ S ~
iH
e ~ ~
a.;.C :!:
~,~
~ ' ,
:t... t
.Iii
: ~ ~
b ~ ~
(D "t.... t
~ ~ ~
u:! S: '&
o ~p
~ ~ &:1
CL i~!
a~~I
~ " S
";: i 1 i
~ ~ .!? g
f:~~::
~ !
~ ~~.1~
h~nn
2 H~n~i
m iiiUH
-I.oo"P"@
Pi
;11
<1: ~ ~ ~
:: ~ :
a:i s ~ i
o ~ ~ ~
Q! .t...:,,:
<!~:~
a.i~~
ii ~ s
~ ~ i
d~~
~ . ~ &
~ 1; ~ .:
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
c:~ t
~ 5 g ~ 0
~~:~!
a eE t.~
.~~~~:
.c: "0 at) 0
~[.~!~
... ~'S: "CUI
€; ~i s
~ II ....~'O
:-~1:~ ...
~ ~~t!
_!sEoS
r--
co
0
cr-
cr-
~
.
.
.
g
~
i
.
;;
0
----!- - -
! ~
.. .
~2
~ .~.!!
f ~.~ ::
.t::
I:' r'''~ .ii'-;- .
_J 1111 Il!
~~~~ ~i~ "
~~ ~o~ ~
.~~~ I:~
I 3~~~ 5E~ ~
t~~
I i Q. & ~
2~t
~~
o
z
,
/
~
&'
\j
\)
'-
'\)
Q.
QJ
0::
tI)
. 0 ni~
~ z",'
ui ~::!
Z iii~ ~
~ r~ ~
zt i
"'fOd)'~
o g,~ ~ ~
:3 CJ z-
Il>Xn.~
.~~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
W,](iiO ~
.~
c!$J
i
.
.
----
o
}-
ill
>
fl
:]
d)
IL I
() 11 d I
~ H",I
~ "< :! ~ I
'" 1 .~ -
ill ~~d",J,1
I 1~' 9 I
~ ~~:gv;1
.--- CI) '" :: CD I
<( ~~:
U :
I
IL I
I
J- I i
I ; " .
~ I ..., ~ I 8-,1;, ~.~
_ --w- - - _: - - - ~~;;;:ii i{~~i,~, '1i;_
., :.,,'""~I!T""?"&I,;1:;::-':<.,.,~'
'-J ~'. .~."i,'1:;-M~..!.,;,~:~.:-,./:!.:I~~;O':"~!s ,:
1=.. ...~.,.~::~.. "::H~~~~~~~Y~.~~.t!;~. :
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
is!
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
01
CL
;; ... <'>
~~;
- ~
~n
~ s ~
~ '; .~
:P
~ 8 ·
<r~:~
m s ~ i
o ~ s i
~ ~: ~
a. ;~~
~ ~ ~
~ s i
... & ~ ::::
t ~ .... ..
. - ~
~ '; ~ i
H!
~ ~ ..
~ .~ s
~ ,6
~ : ;;
d~
';; i ::t
: .. :
CD ~~i
~,~
u:J .; i
O ~ : ~
.. S ..
~ : ~:1
a.~~r
~ ~ ~ i
. ~... I:
~ . . .
. q'
~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~::
. -
~ '0 '3!
~ ~ _ .. c 1;
ht~q~
o 1 I'! I" e
Z ~:::l~~
W ...., - .
&!} U!UH
.J .OO"P"@
.
...1
r--
CO
o
C1'
C1'
~
,
i
~
~ ~
2~
~ ~!!
t ~ .
r €~
~f~~ c ,
i2';;' .
~S~~ ".n .
;: .. C
J"~8 ~~! ~
b~'
. ~b ~:~
....~~~ 5f!! i
.Ec 0
~i~ ~
2~~
~~
o
z
---
~
Ii)
o ui~
~ z",:
of ~ :!
Z i1i~ r
~ ~~ ~
zt ~
.eo ~r
0'" cJ) .
u O:>>~ IU :
::n .,ZZ
ID ~>xj[;g
'0 "1U1U'"
Q) ,<D...J-S ~
~ "'2~\};g
~uilQ<1)~:;
\... -I @o ~
11.
.
~
~
.
.
}-
w
).
W
::J
ill
IL
o
W
i-
<[
U
1L
l-
II
--hI- I
&U --_!
U
3
d f ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~] ~ ~
~ ~ d ~ I..,
~ j ~ ~ j
~ t3 ~ ~ ;
V'} C\I ~ ~ i
~ ~
.
I,: .
(J)
a
F
0..
~
(B
o
a
w
(J)
1r
~
j ~ ~.
d?
~n
i ! ~
~ ~ ~
~p
<{ ~~~
I :: ~ ;
ill d:
o ~ ~ i
~ ~ '; ~
D- ~~~
~~s
~ :: i
, j ~ ,
: !i j ~
. ~ , ~
99'nl!
- I
~~7.-;o~;; - -,.......
."v~-.><.:-.....
,
,
_.i0=
, ~....
~
:.,..--. -~
.~'~!~. ::::. f...
'~~. ,? i '0: . -Y
If ~
H ..
:)...
"
!'
)
m
~ ! ~
8 ~ ,
0. ~ ::
i~~
!i ! 8
miB
w . ' .
... ,,!
ld s;i
ujp
~ ~1;
G. ~!i &
~ '; :: ...
a ~. 0; ~
a ~, ,
- i ~ :
~ !i ~ ~
~ '; ~ ':
~
~ 1
-; ~~~~1
o 1=til~~
z HH!:i
f3 nuiH
~ ,oo",,"@
--.-J
H~!!
~ E ~ ~~
... "::I ~
_ H1H
~ ~!~ ~
.;-~ ~ ct ..
c ~~ 3'~
:a E~S
~
~
J
;g
!
~
~
~ ~
~~
s ~
:!
t ~
.
DL ;;~~
i~~ ~m
J~h
~ ,.-"
~~ I
~ ,..~- ~
~ z
~;~
!:i
1:%
Jj c 2
ii! .:
J~1
_'::Ii>
.
-
g
;
-
~
o .~
6 ~~
0)' ~ :!
z ru~"
o >11\ 8
d) <tt"
... ~ ~<I)' ~
.. Q g,~1- W ~
::J> Z ...
\D ::)~ -
1} ft..xQ.:::
q) .dJ~~ ~
~ "'2\\}u ~
u. . (!.) G: ..
~ 1U~a;o ~
.0
~
~
dJi)
----
.
}-
w
>
~
::J
ill
D-
O
W
i-
<[
U
0-
J-
~
i~
~~
i(
. ~~--
.~9'2'''1
3:,;,-;,,-:0;; - -1_......
~ .
~ ~ ~ C'~ f
~ ~ ~ I:: !
'" 11" i' .
l~ tS:::t I.") !
. ]. ~ I
:g t. ~ ~ I
- . '"
CI) '" "
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ; ~ i
(f) ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~
z ~ ; i .. Ii: S
0 i ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii
. ' ,
i= . ' .
i'; .i S j ~
0... ~p ~ i ~ , \
~ .. ~ ~ f
0 ~ 8 ~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ ";' i ~
<( & . ~ , ~
(f) a 0. ~ CD ' , . ! \ .~ i
~ ~ .. ~i~ 0 ,
W ~ i
0 td ~ ~ i -' i ~ I z , t:: ,
~ II S W W .. .
u . . u j 1 ~ 1
0 IY t ' · < . (.!) ~ ~
, . . IY q~ ~ a
W <! 't t ~ <! W :;,
(f) !l. j ~ ~ a. ] ~ ! ~ -! . aO"r? "@ ID
. 0 ~ ~ - 8 ~ ~ ~ "0
0... = s i ~
0 ~ : . .
; ~ ~ ~ . n' '"
(Y t .. <II .. ~ . . ~ Q
c... ~~!l q)
(. "; ~. ~ Ii:
l"-
e!)
o
()\
()\
~
c ~ :;.
{3E'go
~~~~i
~E2ri
")0" -:.::a
l~i:"O
~i~~i
:.r~~~
~! !!~
~~~~;
~~~J~
_ ~ E 05
,
i
.
~
! ~
~~
~ . .
5~
"!"r:'" ~~ .
"'''.of
.....c < ~
~~~~ iE~ .
:~ a
':"~
.0 Y -
i:~ ~
~f2
t t ~ ~
i g ~ .
E.~f.
I
I-
~
()
z
. 1
~:
5'
I
.~
-----.
~
11\
o ui~
~ z",'
w"t
of ::>-
Z ID~ r
~ )11\ 8
~t ;
"'f~\O':
o ~\'I~:(
~ ! ~j[ ~
.<1) ~~ ~
"'2~Q~
...IO~ .
IdJIPU ~
.
~
~
~
~
e
e
i
\
1"'-
cQ
o
C1'
C1'
i!
~~~
~~-
~! J= ~
II r;=:> ;', jl
U '". .....
---- .-1 rw '
-- ~I ~,"'~
~ ~:~~ i"
> I
W
::J
ill I
I
IL ~":
O .~ I
~ ~ a ~
'" "" ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ i I
W ~~~ ,~I
~ ~ s ~ I
i- ~~~:21
V) '" ~
~ oj! I
<( I
o i
IL :
I- : in:;;; J7{~\J'&~~1W1! ::!
~ I ': . .~,,,: ":""'~~')~'~""~;I,",),/,'~
- - _1- - -. ~;~~::~,., ':'~'~;~<k":~r!!J;t~:'}:
- -J.I.I- i ,,,....<~~~~~~.,.,'""',:~_..,
ua .., . -%.~'~~"-~":~~~~"'::"'ON"S~,.,
U .:'. ~:'~~"~~~~~~:~ .,.::.:.:~-:, "r~.j',,~":"':~' ~".~'~..:~~':_.
i="
~
-.- _...,. - -I.~..,
3..n,80.00S ~ "
c: ~ Ii
~ 5 t ~.2
~ ~: i.~
a ~ E ~J
~.o"'VI'O
.c'l:l~'tI
~i~~~ 4
:.. tbVl
~C3.t.!_2 ~ .
="!~o J
~jit"~J ~
.0 Q..... ~o
~~"g"S-
~ ... '). ,\
_ ~ e. 1:1 s
.
~
~
.........vo:_.......
~ ~
' :, !
;!Jf! 11/ ';:
"'S~8 .o~
"c~~; i~:
~l~~~ ~~~; ~
} - ....~,
. ,
I
=='11 ~ ~~
-~.IIiiP'~- a
L
~
(f)
z
o
f=
D-
iY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
D-
O
Dl
0..
t ~ ~.
e~~
~n
i ~ ~
,(\
u ui~
~ Z,
w'<t
:3(')
of jjjlll e
z. >111 EI
~ ~~;
· e 0 d)' ~
:;, () g,~ ~ :
(I) :::1 ~ XIL .11
'" Il"ww:g
" cD...J...J'
~ ~~ ~~ ~
Q.. ...~-.
q) UI...JCI1U 0-
n:
PI
e ~ .
. -
0:",1)
j : -:
ds
... i :
~ ~ :
:. ~ i
CD a '& It
...~:
irl jH
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~n
,; '&ct....
8~r-:t
~ : . .
~ i 1 ~
~ < . ~
'.: ~ ~ ::
f . . ~
~ ~ l ~
J !~i~!
o &i.~~~.:l
z "." ~ y Q,. - l
W H~np
<Dlu!Ll
~ "o~p.@
: ~ .1
~p
: 8 '
<(~.~
: i i
~ ! ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Cl ~&'
a... :
~ ] j
i : j ~
~ ~ ~ 1
.
-
- ...
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study -
-----~------- ..-
-----------
-- --
----
COUNTY ROAD D
I.
/.0':',::\, Lake ,"A( 1 L'IIIJ .'
'i'\:" i / d: 1.1 Ii 10,<" Josephl""I',i ~\I,l",I ;;\~, , 10
-,r'~~< Ii ,i:+r~,,\, I,' ,
I,Ll "I'. ..( I!'ft -~ "i'::ji "
,.. I,"': \"" 1~;~;;/' ">,,);,/,;:
f'~!,,-l ! I it!. ,('F "" ",,:'>;"'1I/l"!I';It,
1i I,!" IJ 1\!:I~r:\~i\';~:,^;~ '112::E~"j;
CQU~TY._I!QADCU-'/, -, I 'tciI"TI!'~t '1,1':11"';-1)' le;,_ C.J.- -~'..n.n.> ~';,c I' rTII! 1 ~,i;t I
il jL'C:C,J1,!fi!-'--: 1" "',;,;,,j::'I,\ri'ji' Lake ,'.. \\+: ,11,'1, '~.' I." ,
I -"!f~i "'I"". I" I~I"'/~.L.l ,,'1'}'''-. ~" , Iii I '''' 01 'I'
/''',_ ,-'1~11"bl'/j .UUJi,' I /:I'i;l,).,~I,t':I, -I,IM '/'C:'~
, ; '\ i::..'" =lL WeL, r"j,.......,...~VMU .~LDi!I! u_(',~ ,ilt, ,j.lcJ,0.JS_'
I L'.t~iU'- __j~,.ti,pYI'!'Y"'IIHIHIJ.~:llI'.I! 17"",W"~!',J::;i" i\
:.-,,-~- . 'j!,"~'~: i;ci"'ll:'~;'jt~,~,";;" >"'-"l",!:,~"",.r:!'JH~,!I;: ,I
';:'" ."J( ,_1 -h!: I'! .:ujl '.0' ~;'!,c ,',I !?I:(.i'i'~\I':ti~','"'!''' '
! IIb.#' ... :',' ,ii.iil "I rJ~~.'~! ;Iil ,I':' ';;'11 I'; ..1;'
i'Dr c,L !,;.;,~ fY,2J= j;.. :", IrJC~ i+':'~lil,' :-\:~,4i~r "",",,:". '
,m ;_.'."-L', ,",' 'i, '"1'Jjjl 111,,),1' ',\(:~{'l'L ...
,'j", , .-"-H'bl 'I, 11'11',:",.:,,"-<.1, I"
-- ,iJ,i,'i;:,"i,i;~tl .... -"',ih';fl 'i";l,:"! ,jl .,,~'t'jLv ,"H' ,
1:1,:1.), ~n"'~'1 '~?'T ~\~:i III~~((,
City ZoDmg Numberofl:~\,:~ji'Li~ii ',;! ,.8,J",\, 'i' ,-,,;1.
Designation Par.elak~'lIi, "'{ :1'=, 1;,'71 jl I 1 ,'. -J.'JI~2,
, Current Flag Lots D~~oant I~ '\ 1, !,_~!l,i~"" I" i 1 ..~ ,,\~~Fi1, '
Flag Lot LARPENTEUR AVE
, Other Paroels Based on pan:el.r with _Iolwldih less than 40 feet
Lakes ond parcelorea gr-eo/e1' than ll.()(f() stpIaI'Ofeet.
l
"11 i
,
I
'.\
i :
"
COUNTY 'ROAD,' C2
~! ' /
"
,;
,
,-
/
, );2'/'\- N .
/;;/' -,'
A I'
::?-~~~~~.1:'ROJ.-, B,:1
1"'1'
i~
',~.. '.
I, "
ROSELAWN AVE
COUNTY ROAD D
~~k~j//f-l--,p /ii!/~~j;'U)l,rm :)~fi ,'r)<5i! \;o~'<'/, Loire Jylf'i ~i.;Ji-.l ""'C:~
,tf}!iti;;7//1 /0' \, (r;[ij~l~~ (J~~ I t"l '[/ ,~ig, '! I .,' "l m:' 10 ~{- we;'H"- :
illt~i.~&.,'6>/I.j'"',.(! '.:'.".li\~~Jll ", -. \r,Ji !~II~{j It OlL -II 41\;i;d,,~~f ;JJ,~;i\'C _I: jj?:}:;"J; J', "jI\
~f~~/ "1 ),': \( i\, ""-.)''': ,illil>:I/ Ij'I Ie J' \ lll+I!;lid?t/:"~;7;.
1J&ii CQUNTYJ,.RDAD"CC2' I. \_.,;. .1,- .J!-'" y\ I,'; HiL"". ,i' 2~?~:',ji iJWLi'-'''. ",II.
';/' / . ':!,~ f J \ : iil1 ill'; (" J ..... .', 'il ~~!"V''[l >d> ,\C"':,<' ;'iI I
,VI; /..",1 \/"'f" II ;-jJ\, r= -1' 1 co i,~ 1 -T;}1. ;~Lf V :~">~ _,1 'i.
(V. 1 .:'.:;! ii'll.;' I; I ,3 ij:;:jC1",jj [1.!,,1, ..,H'J&<1IT~ "':f;"'.,i
, " ' !:I -', ' ij . J" II "i I _50," I 'fs2\;':';/'::;E9"';~~-;~o,: ,
!~.",,",,:,"" .O!~ ;'f,', c".I"ic,.;'h: ';' ......('0.;i'"i" l' ~ D,:~! ".
),. ,I 1'1-:'r' " _<"",,':,! hi,!."",LoIre ,jfl i,' : Iii I, <t:,i.,
__=- ,! I, '\,'/! '):;:t"1,).C ~ 'J, :~~~~. ',>,::,,',,, ELI
i 'IJI j~luJ, ;0"," 'II "inl d",
: ,i l'~ ' ~'I '~,i~ -, r;I...', ~;',']'iii~="':.:;: "
'1-J'..~~~v -- --- .~ ,C~:jH'l';, ~~~L>"';';"'I".L _L~..
lit (.L'I',"'~I P, 'D i;' .:; Ii 1 .--tr;?"~:u ~ 'Lf.'~I' 1,~1,' 11:1" (';,.'i Rffi~"T 'j~~;",L{" 11"")1_
:1~~ ~i.IIJJ.~~OA~L~~ ) I, L,d !,i 1 q r.:"T;-;"'~ I I~'. i'i'I""u"TY,~,,14.r "''1:,-,
IJ:'U- '-'i::Ji - --k]c rn Ii ~.., " I,ll' .' .L !r-i, I.,. ~;EJ'~tt's;f,
II[ ~ -, ! L_ _U j '~ :HI ~~I -,;(~~:;-,-l ;. .,,,>u ,,:'L rl;r
I'I}, JI Jil! 1':" ,i!! ~ITJ, ji -' ,,' _lid.. .'" ,'\'\
"/,.~ W. . II!! ~~'iI 1<-.' 0\', ':~,~ "',' iT',"";",o ' 'I' - '"
~- '-------" ';',r'ifT""'" ..i=~Y -I-',' fi'cbh~' i!,:icl ~'.,~$I ';1 IJ?II' l,;j;~~;;,"\'
R08ELAWN AVE CltyZonml Numberof :H,Cji'L~ Iii I "~~~jj.: ~Q~ '<S
, DeltpadRoln Pa24re2811 ::.1',., ,0 -W J -. i i :
'Potential Flag Lots D~~~ 331 :(1"1, lli~ d _. ~f'''f'~I . I_~' I '. ,iil
LARPENTEUR AVE
Other Paroell Based on pan:el.r w/dt _ lot wiJtlt _1M than IJS /e,t
Lakel ond parcel area 1JIYIl"" than 22,()(f() ,qual'Ojat,
The City of
.~
Minnesota
"F1ag Lots" are generally defined as single family lots which haw very tittle (30 to 40 feet)
offrontageon a public road system. but have a long~way(60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion of the lot. where the house is constructed. is generally set back 100 feet
or more ftom the public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Depar1ment
July 8, 1999
SoareR:
"Remley County GIS Baao Map 01199
"Remley County P'"JIC't7... date f>>i97
.CUy ofRoscvinc GIS
o 1000 2000 3000 Feet A-
N
.
c:::::=
~
~
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
- I
-------4
}- :
111 I
> :
~ :
::J I
ill :
I
IL :
() ~ d I
g H",I
~ "" ~ " I
111 !~]~~I
. k1 ~ .. :;; I
i- :S tJ:;;.!.1
Q) , i) Ii)
CI) C\I :; <D I
<( ~ ~ I
U i
IL :
I
I- I j
I ; " .
~ I ~'-'
--Oa- I · '::,,!ti%~,.:'~."rl
- IU - - _I. - - .~~;:;::::~ t~;~~;~:i~~~~ ;""
, , ,:,.!,.~,j~~1:~r~I!'''''':~sntll:J:'--:'';:-
V .~.. ;;;~'1:';p-;~~,!-:,~~,;:.J;\'''''''~':';:''S'-:y;,
j.~' :::~:~(:~~.'.r.t;'~~;t~~~f::W~h~!w
.;
"
I
.\
~
:iF
[JJ)
~
o
~i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
~ ~
tg~io
,,~- ~ ~ ~
~ e ~ 1=.i
l:!:-bJ~ ~
.c:b~1)O ~
:~~ti~
13 2-' .J a ~
:,~'~1~
;:" Q, t.c:
~~.i~
~ita: "
~ ~! i~ .
_~eos &
! ~
.~ II
~ ~.2
.~.~
~ . .
r ~.~
'T~r~ ~~
IIII ~2":' Iii
e~u ~H
JS~~ .~~; ~
15~1. ~St
'~Wb .," ;;
u-g~ ~EE ~
t ~ g.
~~~ ~
~~5
99:!t1
3:tUO-:O;;......I-_~..,.
.
..!
~~
()
Z
~
(f)
Z
o
i=
(L
~
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
(L
o
Ol
0...
i .... oi
~~~
. - ~
~ i !
i ~ ~
~ 'i .~
~p
~ a'
<( a""
iii ,,="
ill ~ j E
o ~ l i
~ ~: ~
Cl i i '0
8~$
~ ~ i
d i~
. . ~!
. .
IS "Q ~
g ~ ~
8 ~ ~
o;'C ..
$'''6
~ : 'i:
d~
~ t ~
::.. ::
~ :: i
rn a . .
-' ... ~ s
W s.. i
u &! !
~ n~
(l. i ~!
~~~t
~ - -. .
dP
· : ~ 8
~ ~ ~::
1 .... j
-; ~~.21
h~nn
o ~i-;~\~&
~ .....~~r~.:::i
~ HUiii
-! .,o"p'@
11\
\,) ui~
6 z....
JU..t
0)- ::\-
Z ifi~ ~
~ ~~ ~
zt ~
· ~ ~ d)- ~
.. 0 :;,\'IJU :
tfi'::3~~~<>
\J 1l"~JU:R
'IJ .cD.J.J ~
:0 ,,~~u :8
0.. 'IQCI)!l~
~ W-1a;O ~
n.
I"'-
ex:>
o
'"
'"
/
o
r--
Q)
o
a-
a-
~
cfJ)
I
I ~
,
i
~
.
}-
w
>
~
J
ill
J.L I
() ~ " I
~ ~ a", I
In .. ~ " ,
~11!: (::
W !~d:".,',1
. Qj. ~ I
.c ~ .! I
j- '0; ~ ~.;; I
CrJ ~ J '" I
<( ~ :
U :
I
J.L I
I
I- I
I
1\1 I -,
IL ., : I 8',1t.~ ';o"~1:.:...=t. ,,",. J
I .: ~..'.";' 1:": "')~!-;;,"'1"" '-g
_ -J.I.I.- _ _ _I_"::"'~'':'.':- ~;..~~..;~::t~!;:!~~~"7.'~N
...... _ _ _,. ,~-.....H ~..~.,u"~I:.{
U i >,;t1~~~t~~~;:;~::~~+:.~.~~ '.
.~. ,;;~'1:~.jo;~.)...~::.eSi\I':~'-"':'>,' )::~.
1=.._" : .:\:!~:~:~ ,,". :":':Hi.~?~:~:1~~~~N-v~
-. - j
! ~
~ ~
~ !;
, .
. .
"'!"''''' t~ .
...... .'~
r i i;7
':'S',.=-
1.1. b
m~ "H .
~..~
~5o'8 1'a i:' -
b~" b.'
. ~b ~:~
Q~g~ sf2 ~
t~%. 0
; & ~ ,;
2~~
~~
o
z
"I
a,
i.1 ~;
.j I
"
.~
~
~ Q ~ U~
(f) 8~l a ~ ~
z ~ . ,
.. E ~ "1- i!;
0 :: ~ ~ ~~;
i=
D.. Pi .. ;: ~
~p ~ ~ a 1
C{ : , ~ ~ ]
0 .; a ' .. ,
$ ~ i j i ; t
(f) <1: a", 5- CD S .
W = ~ ... a . . \ ~
~ ~ i ....,~ 0 ! ! , i
0 [j ~ .. S ...J ~ : i fu i :. ':; ~
~ . . w ~ ; . :: ..
0 1 ... :t U ~ : .. .. .. I . .
. . . (j) HI
w <( . . . Ci ~ j ~ U ~ Q
(f) Q. ; 5 'Q <( W
. 0 ~a~ a. i~i -! . 00" P 8@
(L . .
~ ; i a S ~ ~
0 '; & i ;:: ~ .. . .
[Y d ~]
(L ~ ~ '^ to ~ ~ .!! 8
E '0 i I ti: '; '!f ~
11\
U ui~
:?; z~
<I)' gJ C!
Z ijj~ r
~ ~11\ ~
zt ~
." f O<J)" ~
:;, 0 ~~ ~ :
[() ::s"z-
fl ) xll. ~
~ .j ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ W....OiU ~
.
~
<IJ
.
.
}--
w
>
~
::J
ill
IL
()
W
i-
<[
U
IL
l-
II I
-ilt---'.
U
::! ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ;
"'11 :; (:: I
} ~.g ~ \,~ )
~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ ~.~ ~ ;
V') t\t ~ ~ i
'" 0 '
~ 0:
I
I
1 ,-'
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
Cl
o
(f)
I1J
o
o
I1J
(f)
o
0..
o
Ci
0...
~ ~ ~
a:;' ~
~ i 1
t ~ 'ti
~ ~ i
~p
~ a ~
<(a"
I : ~ ;
IIi ~~l
o :e ~ ~
~ ~:;
Cl ~~~
~ ~ S
~ ~ '::i
: J i
i : l ~
~ ~ '.1
o ....",r-'
~LL:'S' I
~-~~ g
~ z
9!rrrl!
. ,
~~_7.-;o~~ - -.-......
~-~~.:>.
"
,
,
.[ ..... '.- ':9.' ~ '~t> f ·
I": _.... .. -
I
~1:1:
- ,. ,,:"! . . :.; : .:::. : " " "} ~
'~','" ') i u" i! O~
;1 ~" .. ',)...
P i i
~
ill
~ ! ~
~ ~ ~
i ~ ~
;z: ,:;';
. ! a
~ ~ 'II
~ ~ ~
(D a::
... " ~
u1 ';i
o ~! :
~ ~ j ~
0.. ..'
] ~ 1 '-
a '. 0; ~
~~~~
i i 1 i
, . " 3
~ '; ~ ':
..
! ~ 1 i
]..!~i~~
o - ! i? ~
z !!ziI:&
I1J ]':'~-~
~ n!un
...J ,oo"'e"@
-
~
~
2~E~ ! ~
;:~~! ~ t
H~~o~J ,~ ~
~~!~~ .J
,:.Q,~~. ;:J
~!!~~ "i~
.;a~ct:.. ""t
~ ~~ 3'J .
:~E~5
~
!
i
o
2 ~
~~
S ~
€~
.
< ~
i"2~
f~~
~g!
1:::
iE2
!it
.......,;;;
.
"
~
o
"
.~
~
U .:1)
w\!)
6 z",'
(1)' ~::!
~z i1i~ r
>11\ g
<t i ..
... .. z r: ~
... OU)' r
:;, 0 ~~ 1U :
iD :3~Z~
\j ~., X 12. ;g
v ,d)~~:g
~ "'2c:}U ~
vui"!~~::
n: ~"'u ~
.
~
~
~
.
.
}-
w
>
~
J
ill
IL
o
W
j-
-<t
U
IL
t-- ,i
(l I':'"
I ~ . ". '."'0'" I
_ -hi- _ _ _!. _ .\..~_.. i:~~;~. (~fE!h:-~~
J.LI. _-=- _ "., j..'""':':' I"'r~ ,. .
, , i:::f::~~~"" ;..,.,. . (':;..~ > ~
~J .. .i~~..(\'~l''!SSfg'w'J''~'"''
1=.,::" ':~tr~r';:;:8~~~~~~~~~Lp,~,.~;~1
~ d
OJ " -
~ ~ ~ ~l
~ ~S!
l<>>~~J,i
.. "-J _ .., I
~ ! ~ ~
.~ ~ :s v; I
Vj~ ~~!
~ Q:: 1
!
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
iY
o
(f)
ill
o
o
ill
(f)
o
0..
o
0l
Q..
t '; ~
a ~ ~
~ - .
.u
~ ~ ~
~ ! ~
<0: ,). ~
~ ~ S
~~"5
t : ;;
~ i ~
- . .
~ ~ :
CD ~~i
~~1:
ill ~; i
<.) &! !
~ ~ j ~
CL i U
8~d
~ . .,
:: i ~ ';;
l I.
. 1: · 8
(. "; ~::
1: ~!
~p
· 8 '
<(8"
:: ~ :
m ~ t i
u ~! ~
~ ~ ': ;
.....". c ~ -
fl. j ~ :
8 ~::,
! ~ !
. & ~ ~
t ~ VI ~
~ ~ s $
99'zrl!
... ,
-"_-"'~--I.
3:':,!O..oos ~"""
.
tig 0
~ ~ - g
t ,,- ..
'3 ~ ~ ~ ~
";\" ..::a-
.~.(I bJ:...
'::'1)~bO
~[~~i
- ::'"S: 'Qvt
~I:q; ~.
t i l~:
... _ _:0
~15::e: ~
~ ~: f~
_'5Eo5.
..,
:;: .
~ ,I ~~
~ I
'I
,~
~
l' .. !
~ "0 '1'
};!~t;~
o !i{Hq
z ~~:!:.::~
~ HPH1
UJ CI~<:IQ
.-I..O"#"@
11\
U ui~
~ 2'"
w..t
of ::J-
z i\1~ ~
() ~~ ~
d) t.
"'f6 .~
01-11) x
.. Q :b\'lW it
1fi':3026
ll~xn.:1!
~ .d)~~ ~
.. "'2~u~
\l. . <:J IS) a r:
q) W..JiiiU ~
([
f"-
co
o
C1'
C1'
~
~
.
.
~
~
g
~
2~
5.~
:~
~ ~
.
~ ~--
;U
~~;
.<-
~: ~
~t2
..! c
f~r
~~f
.
^
~
~
o
I
...
~
o
z
.
~
~
~
~
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
~" I
f:! ~ Q I
~ ~ ~ ~ I
~-g J j" I
I. "'" '" I
'~j Qi ~
~~Sv;1
~ ~ ~ (() I
C') g: &! I
- I
I
I
I
I
I
I ; " : _ _ _ '. _ " """..:r.,)....,:;;, ,
I = - ''''''''j s'rlt, "'..'!!'....;:{.".,.:1k.~
I ...'. :. h:~~~l(~!;.~~..;;:;;i : '. '.
1\1 .. "-..;" ":"':i!i'i~";;:i'f.. ,.;J::...~~"
IL I. ~~~..-:-,.. ~ i....~.:~..:.;:'W't"'~~;
-a.a.. . _I. - :--->;...,~.~~~I.:r':~!-~;';...,..~_..,.
- I.U - i.:.~.~''.:;;,;~~.p;~1;;:;:(,7:-i'i;;;ON:'g;;~:'fr.~
U j=.':"~~~{'::'~ '__~.;. ':r-'::"~':"_ .::_
r-.
CO
o
0'
0'
\
\
\
\
~
:/:;7,-:0-;;;_- ..,-~.
~~sf~
~~; ~J
:i f: ~ ~
;";-i~'O ...J
:~~i~ ~
=~~~J~~'
~i~~~' .
~ ,,'a '3-
.........":t" \
~ ~ E to S
~ fe ('1'
s.~
~ ~ r '
i?~g :;~ 0\ ;
.... ',~ .
g~~ ~: ~ -.;
~a<'8 :;,
b" - 'a - "
;:;ih ~f;
\\==~~~1:< ;
i f- ..... .
i1
~
c-~~~ ~
~
(f)
z
o
i=
Q..
iY
o
(f)
ill
o
o
~
o
Q..
o
Dl
a...
'; ~ ~
:5;~
~ i j
i ~ ~
In
o ui~
Z z,
- W!
0)' ::J ~
z ~:R 2
~ ~~ ~
... fO~' x
g,~ ~ :
;;, g ~ ~[ ~
ID a",ww~
-0 di ...J...J .
~ d~~~ ~
Q. ...!!'!-.
q) W.Jc!'1J 0-
n:
: i ·
::: .. ~
e ~ ~
.... ...
s 5. ~
~ ~ :
dii
~ ~ ~
~ l i
rn ~~:
~" ..
oJ s:,
~ ~p
Ci _&'
~ ;U
~~~I
a ; ~:
";: r i ~
r : . .
r ~ ~. ~
~ !
! ~.l~
i..~~l!~
.=!.~~t
o !!'ii~':~
~ iHHu
U>w
..J OOO'1p"@
: ~i
ip
: 8 '
<( 8~~
:: s ':;
I C ~ t
[j ...
U :t ~ ~
Ci : ~ .
<(:..
a. : b 'Q
t "1;"
8- 8 -
, -
:2 <11:;:
: & ~ ~
i .. ~ ..
E~ll
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
_.._~-_...~-- -
.~------
-----~------------
- -- --- ----.
COUNTY ROAD D
~--,,__L,L
---j ,,jiC~')
p(~~;t'j...
I' .. - ..
Ii!9
/-
f
Current Flag Lots
Cit)' ZonlDg Number of
Designation Parcels
RI 12
o Vacant 1
Flag Lot
L-.J Other Parcels
Lakes
B.,ed on porcels with average lot wid1h I.... than 40 feet
andporce/ area greoJer than II.f/()() MfUorefeet,
COUNTY ROAD D
: ~~~~Pt0Y/tJ' : fj~\ (i<<-:~j~~ili < i I~~: I~~~:f.
r::\y~~.i.'.X!' '4.... <- r .." I r"lfuiJ.']fi!1, '\J_!L.H~}ib,"U
I ;j{~~' ~'..: /'/ /' / ) j! ,,~,,~'FJ\l > ... ~
, \~ " "r' ~', '\ ~I ,n '~.l.-':~=D
'[I~~~/('r:- ;i)~H~f~14'~;~L;" '0S~\'
~>,~'J!i/:; /,) ;L -..ii' :\, : ~f:I,_' ' ,/ -"~~Lr'1~c-l:1JI-f:<;;c rf
i(~?coUNTY-.IROADLc2 ! JJ-'l . cWc'I;JUL..;" 'Yo=----
'I III~ .ili ',I ~ L,,--ii~j'.' .~. ~~I'.'~~~' -. .'. ;J;.;, ~
,)., ,!,~, \ I".'q~\',.:.._~t~_
, / I /'i-~!' ~ICI!~ .,-," _" ~'I: I l.___ I ill
/ fT 1 /// '~j~1 1 :+ '::.'f -: ~J; I ' r - 1... 1 ~L.~
I I !~ ~_ "",,_,(_l.~;_ 1'-"-' r iiI
_o':_:_CQIJ"rv_RQ~D_ C~ ':a....=-:':___!r:;_l: J__~,'~~~J!\Ji
Ii,: lillll,L_~i~t]~:t ~
j",;
City Zoning Number of
Designation Parcel.
RI 242
R2 3
D Vacant 31
Flag Lot
"
. ,1,;;,1:,_
,)jP-.-..\-
I V
I 11 .'+j'c:oili"
,{'iI~l,. 'r11l;!t'~~-\
,:/ L cOU"TY=:iRoAD1l8~
i'(Cj,"> ,: . .
r' " ',i:cb:J1
.1' ~"'C.
II /1
1-_/(
Potential Flag Lots
, Other Parcels
- Lakes
LARPENTEUR AVE
B.,td on parcell with average lot wldJh greater than 135 feet
and porc<I orea greater than 22.000 llJU'I"'fut.
The City of
.~
Minnesota
"Aag Lots" are generally defined as single family lots which have vel)' tittle (30 to 40 feet)
offumtage on a public road system, but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion of the tot, where the house is constructed, is generally set back 100 feet
or more ftom the public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Connnunity Development Department
July 8, 1999
Sourees:
'Ramoey eounly GIS IIoso Map 0\/99
'Ramoey CouIIIy pn>pctty lax _ 02J97
"City ofRoscvillo GIS
o
,
1000 2000 3000 Feel
A
N
.
~
c@
~
.
.
..
~
rtJJ
c=:::>
o
~!
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
3~T;o-:O;;"-h~.... '
99'Ifl!
. I
.~
I
'1
(f)
Z
o
f=
0..
DZ
o
(f)
UJ
o
o
UJ
(f)
o
0..
o
CY
0...
t'" 0;
;;~;
- s
~n
t ~ ~
s "Q .i
~p
<(~~~
:: s :
m !: ~ i
o ~ ~ i
~ t,'
<(~~s
a. -~~
~a'
a..... ...
~ s i
,~'j ~
~ ~ VI to
E '" S i
~
" ,\
~ ~~~21
],~nn
o ii~~\q
Z~::!to~
w ~...... =....
m nuH1
-.J .oo,q~.@
~ j i
8 ~ ~
Oi .fi ~
i~~
s i ~
; ! ~
m ~: t
! ~ S
...J !C:...-
~ ~H
~ n:!
a. i~t
8~~I
~ . '. .
,i P
~ ~ ~ S
I!: ~ 'f::
5 ~ t
Q. g ~ ~!!
~~it~
t:: e s ~~
~:fi:-o
:~~p
~ 1}':i.....2
~:li~
~ni~
~i1:ct: ;
~ ~~t~
_ ~ E oS
I ..
'~j
~ '&'~
5~
r i~ ~
~r'rtr ~i~ e
"'" :
m~ ~H
JlI:~ ~~! ~
<~~~ 1:~ ~
~~~~ ~f.2 g
to 11.c: ~
J~r .
~..
~~
Q
z
~
II)
\,} 1Ii~
~ z,,:,
<0' !!J ::!:
z. jjj~ r
~ ~II) ~
zt ~
"f~d)'~
.. Q g,~ w :.
:J> "ZZ
1D~>x[;R
'U u."'ww oft
Q} . ell ..J.J '\'
:;; "~(i)U~
Q . '" cn~ r:
~ W....(iiU ·
n. ...
~
o
CJ'o
CJ'o
~
~
.
5
~
*
.
~
/
.~
~
i
.
.
}-
w
>
~
=:J
ill
IL
()
W
i-
<(
U
IL
I-
f'-
cO
o
Cl'
Cl'
~
....
~
.
,
~
i
.
~
li0
- tt
,;,-
-~
.'.1
! ~
~~
~ ' .
~-
~ ~
-:,..r.... ~~ .
'" ~ ".,;.
r iF-;-
~~~~ .
m~ ~g~ .
;::"4::
~s<:,g to t "
.~- i:~
;&~. ~
U..~ s:;~
_ E c ~
j~r 0
_~t
..-j
~ "
tj ~ -
(,-, ! ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ... I
0> ~ t
! "" ] ;;; J, I
'~j QI' ~ I
:S t: ~ ~ !
~ ~ ~ uj I
~ ~ I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
~~
o
2
h__ --
~
(f)
z
o
F
0...
Ci!
o
(f)
ill
o
o
w
(f)
o
0...
o
IY
Q..
..... 0;-
.I! Q ""
8 ~ ~
~ > i
_ r ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ t
a ~ .
0\ ; S
~~;
d~
; ! ~
CD ~~i
~~~
IT! .; i
o~p
Ci ~j~
<t ~ . .
Cl. >' it
~ ... Q;
8~~1
~ : . .
> q..
~ ~ ~ ~
I!: '; ':eO ~
~ !
~ ~ I
~ ' ~
01 q
Z ~ :: ..
ill . ."
1D Unl}!
..-J .oO"p"B
~
U\
\,) ui~
~ z....
W,f
<D" ::1-
Z ifi~ ~
o >U\ a
d) <Ii"
z r: ~
4Ip fO . ....
51 Q ~~ ~ :
ID :)~l[..
'\1 rr.. ~w :g
q} ,cD...J....J '?
~ "~G\) ~
2-niOl<1)~~
'- -101 \.) :!.
Il
~ ~ _I
~i!
· a '
<ta.~
:: ~ ...
ill s ~ i
() ~~i
a :....:;:
~ ~ : ~
Cl. I~~
aa~
~ ; i
';; & i ::::
I: ~ <.; ..
l~!l
.
~
CJJ
.
.
~
}--
ill
>
~
::J
ill
iL
()
ill
j-
<[
U
lL
J-
W
-itt--
U
~ d ,
t! ~ ~ ~l I
~~g~~
t)) -g ~ I !
l~.9 ~ ~ I
' ~ ~ S ~ J
.-. L' ~ I.:) :
~ ~ ~
.. 0:
~
L=..~--~
(f)
B
f=
Q..
iS2
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
Q..
o
Ci
Q...
- ... 01'
. ~ ~,
~ ~. 9-
" :; ~
~ > 1
~ ~ ~
i S ~
~ ~ \
:; "I !
, ,
· a .
<( a.::,
~ ~ ~
I <:; ~ \
[j · d
o . - .
^~ ~ '0 ..
'-< - <
<(~~~
D-~~~
a ... ~
. < .
: j ~ ~
~ s ~ t
:!: '; r. ~
~~'n1
-.....--I-~.
3 :~7;o.o~s .
~
I ... __. (
.~;!
')' ~'7l>
,.. ":".~. I:
.'
7t
J)
I' i:
:f
i:
. i --
';~
:! (
J~.q
'. ~
.' 0.
1 'II ~
~ ! ~
~ ~ ~
Hi
~ ~ ~
"; ~ ~
~ ! i
(DB;.
.... ~.... "-
ill ~H
o .'~
Ci ',I.
<{ ';.. t.
Cl. ~ ~ : ~
s $ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~
> I j ;;
: ~ ~. !
~ ~; ~ ...
j
? .. i
; ~ ~
;..!~t~~
j = ~ · I .' i
D !!~!~~~
~ jiUu~
~ ooo"e3@
r"-
eD
o
a-
a-
\
\
~
!~~j~
~~~~~
~ ~; j ~
...0 C 0
~~;!j
- HH~
"'-v~..
i'~~1J
~~E~S
,
~
i
~ : I;
d .'
1'\,.. r" '5 ~
~i~m tfJ
O -"6'~,
~ ~~~o >!it
~:=..
. ~~; J~;
. ~~o" '_
~ '0--_ J!f
~ ~
~~~~
~
';
~
.
.
~
"
>
;
~
LJ)
'"
o ui~
Z z,
-' w!
d) ~~ r
Z >LJ) a
~ ~t ~
-f~1B'~
O ~"z z u.
'j, :)~xi[;g
tD Il"ww ~
lJ en ..J...J "
~ d~ ~~ ~
~ ui~@l) ~
Q:
.0
~
~
~
.
.
i~
~~
o~ ,
@~--'
I
\
\
I
I
!
!
\
\
\
\
\
~.9'Z&"1
_......_1__.
3 --:,.;~~-:-oOS _ ".
L
B....
I
J
~i0=
}-
OJ
>
~
::J
ill
IL
o
OJ
i-
<[
U
IL i . .
~ :, ~"'....i'~~~!~~~
- - -----:l.:-::..,.J~ 1(!XJAl}>:<I' .....;.',.,."",.. .
-1t - - - 'T'~rr""';";;;;*~r~,"","",
'-J i=---~
~ .
~ -
~ ! ~ ~~
...., "'C ~ ~ !
~ 11 ~ II
~rZ'].~1
~ ~ :5 ~ I
.~ L' ; f.O I
tr) '" "
~ ~
g_......8-..~.....~
g ... J il
..,~
'--j
,
: j
';,..1.."#' ,... _" .;4- ~
(f)
Z
o
i=
0...
is!
o
(f)
ill
o
o
~
o
0...
o
(Y
0...
~ '; ~
- ~ .
a ~ s
~U
i S ~
l ~ "
~p
: a '
<!s'~
'0 ~ ...
-.J ; ~ i
~ ~ ~ j
~ ~ : ~
f'L ,$ ,
· a ~
a, _
~ ~ j
- J .. ;:
i s ~ to
~ "; ~ ~
_ 0
~ ~ i
~ ~ ~
:~'o
i : t
ds
~ j ~
~ ~ i
CD a ~ I
.J ;~i
W q:
~ ~~"
<t '0 . &
a.j~:
8~~
~ ~ t
':: ~ ~
I l · a
; :; ~. ~
i
1 ~ ~ 1
~..~it~1
l:s'I'i
o !~'~i:..':~
Z ... = . . .
ll.I ~'~I'H
(!) &!&Q&O~
~"o~t1.@
r--
C!)
o
0'
0'
" .
!~g~2
~~-~:
~E~!!
i~i~o
~~~!i
~~~~~
~ i ~.~ ~
~i~~E
t~~~:
~ t e 0 s
~
,
~
~
"
~
2j
t~ .
~~
E::
~~~ .
~~!
Y Q !! .
'tISt
~E; ~
~ ~ ~ ~
0
. .,
".,
_0'
I
...
~
o
z
, I
'"
~ : I ~~
:3 I
I
.~
~
tJ)
U ui~
6 Z,
W"f
0)" :3 ij
Z ~:g i
~ ~t ~
· ~ Od)' ~
~I-UJ :
:;, g ~ ~~ ~
ID (ll,ww:1l
'\J cD JJ '
~ dj! ~~ ~
Q ...$1-.
Q) WJ<I1U 0-
n:
.
~
dJ=
~
~
.
.
\
\
\
\
\
;=..
~
o
i=
0...
fSi
o
({)
w
o
o
w
(()
o
0...
o
~
i '0 ~
8~t
~n
i 5 ~
: "Q ~
~p
i a ..
<1: a. ~
I ~ f i
~ ~q
Ci~~.
<l ~~:
Q. ~8~
s.... :
~ s i
- & c .
E . J ~
f~~j
? !
l ~ l I
L~Hn
'" .. '.5. ... \ ~ e
2!!!~~;:
lli Ujn!~
~ .OO'1p"@
g ! i
e ~ ;
:~'Q
i -. ';
; ! ~
~ ~ ;
=" -.
, · i
OJ 8 ~ .
..J ~ ~ ~
w & ~ :
~ q~
~ ~U
~~~J
~'f:
~ ~ ~ ..;
I ~ ~ ~
s , ~. ~
r---
co
o
a-
a-
. .
!~~j~
"~-~:
i~~;i
... ~~VlO
~~~!;
!rE!~
~.~.
.;i~~!
~~~~:
~ ~ E :t ~
~
~.
~
,1
& , !
. .
~J. H ~. t:",
..:.... ',\
i~;~j HI ;;:
a-- '::1_..
"~~i~ ;~;
C'tI~~Z,'1~ ~ ~ < .~
,: J-~ .......
it '
j~
==- ~-==--- ~
-~;....- L
~
.0
. u ui~
z z.
- We!
~e
~. ~:R i
~ ~~;
~ f o d)" ~
g,l-w :
t ~ ~ ~~ ~
'" ~"WW:::
" on JJ .
~ ~~ e~ ~
D.. 'IQ~-.
Q) 1U-!CJ1U ~
a:
. - ....
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study'"
- ,-
-- ---
----_.--._-~._--
----..----
--,
~----
------ ---- -.
--------
COUNTY ROAD D . m I r
~~i;jX lie"" it.., .~'~'"t2/~{ I i, '
t':::'" ...;,;~fI I, ,,;'::, ';~ 3 i:";,!,,i'tlili !~"r\ 17./ t~ .. ,)y., i
,~'i! ' ".,'~ ~~;'J, ~ I:. .. Tlt,[!!, ',J 1'1] .: /' W;>'(:'dii: '1,] I
",! _~;..., ,,' ~!J",' I' ,..Ij' l~~i:iD,,:,i,!I,!!, L4~ ~i:~::!,,1
I :(.,}'~c8J::i I, I ' ...,~v.". ".,):J~~ I I!! I I
, ,':/ ' "i, Ii' .,,:, ~j~'iit:',~~K/"li"'":;:"~~'(~~f:t! I'i:~,'i ! =
/ I, II i ;1' " . / ~J~ \, ~,. :;.nJl"}SL- ~iili . lif'.,'~,>l.,; :'''i::1~,:,' .. jJ:'
)/~i/: il II' I\_:...l,,~ \ ' H:;;: :: IliIT ~i., "' (::,', ii:.; .."
::)/-.'\ . i.""':' \.'1.- ......:... ~}~:I'~~f!,.",,'c)j--
" "\"\!:>i\ .' I ,l_'i';~" ,';;: ,lr'iTjll'~;:d~,n~"j ~;"i~~,_~r.J' II
:/COUi~iROADB' - i",,/] '~I ,"- _,:,\,!.,' Ii'f:!:~r ,,' ,"']!lllli:;']~,l ,.,,!"~Ul!],~ UI:" i, J~i'
I ~ III, ';"it::m;,:: ,Hi' I ij .' 8f .~~, ", ""{,~q::;:::,' I <'>:,I.~ ]
"L. ,,,,-',',' ",~"" ~.:, ","'fi~';; ,'JI:' <,' '
, . ;''\'''Ij'''~: [:'J:l~ilj~":illI"I..' I. Tileri, 1;'1.1 ~,x,'
-~-:"; ii" 'i,:",". ',I.i~:,ri 1'1 ".ttc IWI,dl:"1 .'.i~ib:(]L 1U,', "e!- 'i; .lc~~ ,+;:" t; :/~5:
ROSELAWN AVE;':!: ." "'U~iTljt;! ~i~~ :JIf:~:";':
CityZonJng Number of 1)1118" ';. ~~:~' I ;:']liL!r, i~)'-"
Designation Parcels Hi' ~>" I '\ I 'IT': '
Current Flag Lots 0 ~~cant 1~ t~.Ll]' lifl lie~. 1_ I "..1,
Flag Lot LARPENTEUR AVE
1__' Other Parcels Based 0" pmce1.r wuh avm-age lot width /e.u than 40 feet
Lakes and parcel Q1'BQ great",'han 11.000 squanfeet.
l,
:I! ~L: A it tjriiit'.ic'l ,1 '"dit,;~,~ _ ;,/L~ ,,~ij /s '
; p;/ ,i': L~'::' "~~L'&'X)' ~W[~~~I iit c"'..;yj - \\ ;4"'1I]I~~' ~;,$~ '(,,,
, 'L' ~,c:--~, t!! ~\:~~ J G.,lr:(;/i1.., ,\
I! ; J. ,~ ,j ,J -("-i'".~] ,[I: \fqUJ :77 /' J\%;> ;I",~ ;;;;;;':1:,!1,
. J : ell t I II ~ '1~~:~, ',' ", ;J,W \'~W>'<';~i';'C'!:
I ' . , ~\ ~ ""'.," ~I ,,,,,,.,,.,?;; , ,;, " ,J}i,
, COU,HTY ,R,OAD C,' ,',. -.. "- ~ ~.L) ,I, ~,-rl \,1 ]-'-,"11.
------, Ti- . .' ..1, ]'~, ,;,' - '..:>~L,:, ' ,'-"vs;,' f:' c:::J 0 :;1[, ,j'
'-"I . " "j~f,lj,~'~,'r i'll 'L.(:',((, -', Bennelt ~~.'" '. t
, I I I; 'I I I 'I '~~;'i?II!j[t ,':~n:'~Fj/:Ltlu~"j~~~.I ="J~"" ':
I. I' . "" -" 'I , ~:::\cJ,::!t1 .' ;;1"iI].,," ';o""I-1':! w;.',it - ii' ',';-
i ~5,~:/ C_i.----.-/"'''' _C:,~",;i;1t' ii ;';'~:T;':';r :::'ili'!t;;~CGJ~
')7 .;I!I,I, DID ';l'~;,lGlill'i:"':;I": '>, ,~ ,'j '1<]" 'd!I"I'\;,
: r2!1~rl., . "i: ;:~L~?' .,~~~ ;:1 ,,; CI:~:;:~;~ ~~~r";':':-!!"\'ij}j,:~:' ',,!,(Ii.'{~"
L/_ :',,',,,1 :iL~] r: >,(:J""'+~i1!1t: : ,'illl :'ll:~ !F1j I ' ,ff
f1I""n ','L''',[;;,L.1CJ 'JU,lllL .Ii'/!, illi' :~Jit' , ':, % L
~7.~t! N~~sof ~~S:i~ :\it i I ,:;,~~,.. no', ~o'" It
~ 24; T~~;,IJ:JiJ" 'tiff J: .~",'\' i I" ~~
Potential Flag Lots D~~I 31 I", LARP.~T.URAVE <,r~Jl~:_~'__L..i---~_~_".i
'~~.~r' 1 L~
'II [11
,~. ~ lL
=.
R08ELAWN AVE
Other Paroels BlUed on J'fUC'1a willi"..,.",. 101 width greoter than 1 jj f."
Lake. and parcel ....0 great... .Iom 22.000 squan fee'.
The City of
.~
. Minnesota
"Aag Lot3" are generally defined as single family tots whicb have vel)' little (30 to 40 feet)
offtontage on a public road system, but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main portion of the lot, where the house is constructed, is generally set back 100 feet
or more from the public street frontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
July 8,1999
Soureu:
'IIomIcyCGUIrty OJS Date Map 011\19
'IIomIcyCGUlltypropenytax da1a<Y1/97
'CIty ofRaoevlll. GIS
o 1000 2000 3000 Feet A
N
~~[\
~
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCil
DISCUSSIONjDIREGION
DATE: 07/19/99
ITEM NO:
Department Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section:
Item Description: PROPOSALS FOR FLAG LOT ORDINANCE (PF3133)
1.0 BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1999, the Roseville City Council considered the request by Seth Eggessa regarding a
variance and lot split on property located at 1992 Cleveland Avenue. The City Council's action,
in essence, directed staff to work with the City Attorney and Mr. Eggessa to eliminate the
number of variances being requested for the site and to review potential impacts created by
flag lots.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED
Since the City Council's action, staff developed a list of five potential actions the City could
pursue. These were presented to the Council on June 26, 1999. The Council asked for further
work on alternative 2.2.
2.1 Interim Use Permit - Based on Mr. Eggessa's statements to staff, Planning
Commission and City Council, the City could issue an interim use permit (Section
1012.09) that limits the number of years the existing home is allowed to be located on the
subject lot. The permit could be approved for any time duration, such as 5, 7 or 10 years
in length and would allow the proposed structure to be constructed and the existing home
to be removed at the end of the permit period. Once removed the parcel would be
brought into conformity.
2.2 Flag lots - This proposal requires a text amendment to the zoning ordinance related to lot
size and configurations to allow creation of flag lots under certain circumstances. Staff
could research language from other metropolitan cities and provide the Council with a
draft text amendment for their consideration. Should the Council agree with the proposed
text amendment, staff would forward the proposed modification to the Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation.
2.3 Accessory Apartments - This proposal also requires research and a text amendment to
the zoning ordinance to allow separate apartment houses on single family residential
parcels under certain circumstances. Staff could research how other cities address
accessory apartments/homes that are utilized by a member of the principal owner family.
2.4 Grant a Variance - Staff can pursue modifications in the proposal presented to the
Council on May 24 to eliminate all variances except one for lot width on the proposed
PF3118 - Planning Commission (071499) Page I of 2
new parcel. This proposal would require the finding of hardship and acceptance by the
Council of the creation of a flag lot (no modification in the zoning ordinance would be
required). The existing home would still be considered a pre-existing non-conforming
use do to its side yard setback infraction; however, the lot would be conforming to the
City Code.
2.5 Deny the Request - The City Council has the option to deny the request should they
conclude that the above options are unacceptable.
3.0 DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL 6/26/99
The Council requested further work and discussion of alternative 2, Flag Lots, and requested the staff
to draft an ordinance which would allow for the use of flag lots on sites where the size and frontage
would allow for 2 or more homes at a density of 4 or less homes per acre (11,000 s.f.lots or greater).
Staff has reviewed the possible number of flag lots that could be create and found that there are
approximately 250 parcels in the city with 135 feet of frontage and over 22,000 s.f. in area. Not all
of these parcels are developable for additional flag lots because of the location of existing structures
each site. Further mapped information will be available at Planning Commission meeting.
4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 14, 1999, reviewed the alternatives listed above
and the attached draft flag lot ordinance, and have provided.comments and recommendations (as
attached) for consideration by the City Council at the work session of July 19, 1999.
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Q: \Planning Files \3133 _Flag Lots Ordinance \ CC- FlagLot( 071999 ).doc
PF3l18 - Planning Commission (071499) Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance Amending
Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) And Section 1103.06 (lot
Standards) And Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) Of The
Roseville City Code Creating A Procedure For Approving Flag lots
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. Because the City of Roseville has few remaining undeveloped
parcels, there is a need to provide methods to subdivide remaining large, undeveloped low
density parcels to accommodate additional development. One method of providing for this
development is by creating "flag lots". The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a
definition for a "flag lot" and establish a process for the review of proposed subdivisions
that include "flag lots".
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) is hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the minimum frontage or lot
width on a public right-of-way specified in the City Code. The lot width does not allow for
construction of the principal structure at the minimum required front setback line, requiring
an extended driveway to reach an area large enough for the principal structure. The lot has
more than the required lot depth and area for the zoning district in which it is located.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel into 2
buildable lots with the following conditions:
1. The flag lot shall have frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
2. The frontage shall be a minimum of 40% of the required lot frontage for the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. The flag lot shall have a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width,
constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles.
4. The flag lot shall be assessed for improvements based on frontage or area but
shall be no more than the equivalent to a standard non-corner lot.
5. The minimum structure setback from any existing adjoining principal structure
shall be thirty (30) feet.
6. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principal structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee and must minimize, to the extent possible, the visual and physical
1
impact on adjacent properties. The Development Review Committee may
consider the proposed or possible placement of sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building height, heating and
air conditioners, and lighting.
7. The proposed flag lot and minor subdivision shall not require installation of
additional public utilities. Service connections to City systems shall be the
responsibility of the owner/applicant.
8. The principal structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
9. The flag lot shall be reviewed by the Development Review Committee, and may
be approved with terms and conditions.
10. The certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications, and security in an
amount and form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance with any terms
and conditions of approval.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby amended
by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this
day of July, 1999.
Daniel G. Wall, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
Approved as to Form and Content
City Attorney
Date
Q:\Planning Files\3133_FlagLots\Ordinance RPCA(071499).doc
2
.J
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14,1999
RE: PROPOSED FLAG LOT ORDINANCE
A general discussion was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues
1) Eggessa - with no provision for two dwellings on a lot (an interim use would help this); 2) flag
lots may be acceptable but could also be visible problems for future Planning Commission
members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa) would be better than a flag lot provision.
Member Olson object to the purpose section ofthe Code. There is no problem with large lots.
Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because of reduced open
space and odd building placement.
Member Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and uses on the stie including car storage with
flag lot font yard adjacent to back yards - incompatible. Could change water drainage. The flags
are not restricted to R-l zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with sunlight in winter.
Member Cunningham noted that an existing house setback for at present could create a new lot in
front - in effect creating flag lots.
Member Wilke explained that each flag lot should stand on its own merits.
Chair Klausing noted there may not be a direct cause and effect when creating a flag lot. There are
situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development of
existing open space - would it make sense to develop the lot.
Member Cunningham explained that the flag lot ordinance would allow Eggessa's old house to
remain.
Member Mulder explained that the flag lot ordinance should not be adopted simply to solve Mr.
Eggessa's problem.
Thomas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how to increase density.
Member Mulder explained that flag lots in new developments works better than trying to
introduce such developments among existing residential lots.
Chair Klausing likes the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use of land. This ordinance may
not be the tool - other options could be looked at.
Member Olson explained the areas currently lived in should be retained as large lot livable areas.
Member Egli explained concerns with large lot land use conflicts. Are there house identification
numbers from the street (fire issue).
Member Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners - should not tie the hands of future
generations - should be looked at individually on their merits. Member Mulder like to see them as
a CUP with conditions. This would allow each
Member Olson explained that interim uses may be a better approach.
Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc
"
c::::=
c@
~
}-
w
>
~
::J
d)
IL
o
UJ
i-
<[
U
IL
I-
,
'\
.,
~
[fJ)
===:>
o
~i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
\
I
1
\
\
I
\
I
1
\
"'~G?
3"":,7;0--:0;;-""--
I'-
CO
0
0'
0'
~ t ~
i5&~~ ~
~~: iJ ~
~ ~~ ~~ 5
...0 c: 1.11 0 ~
S'2 0" " ~
ol.~!&
~~lJ5
t ~ a.ij.'O
. -.
tii~j ;;
t..)o,,~ " g
:~eo:
~ ..
.~ ~
~ '&'~
< u .
u.
r f~ 0
a-rrr ~ ~..... :
"11 ~jj
m~
~1iI~8 ~ 0 f ~
~.- ~St "
~~ l~; i
h~~ t~~ 2
~ & a ~
" 0<
_bV
:J:
I-
~g
Z
j~~.__.
(f)
Z
o
f=
0...
Qi
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0...
o
Ol
0...
..... oi
I . ~
a~t
~n
i ~ ~
:- ) .0
~p
: II'
<( a~~
. : I ~
~ ~q
rul~.
~ :.. ~
a. ~ h
~~s.
s... ...
= ~ i
: & ~ ~
i . ~ ~
E ~ ~ i
'ti
, ~. !
~ ~ _ .. .c: 1;
L .n.~!
u~H~&
o H: Il: ~
~ BiHi!
~ 0007;p"@
~ 1 i
, ~ .
! .- ~
<:, a
~ : :
s ~ S
'i ~ ~
~ ~ i
m ! ~ ~
Ld · P
o & < I
Q( q::!
<( ~~t
a. ~ ~ It ..,
8~~~
R - ~.
~ . ~ -
. ~ i ~
~.'s
~ 'i !"::
,.
~ '\
!,! ~:
6: :~
.. .
0:
"
':1
~
LI\
lS ui~
z Z 0
- w::!
~. ~ ~ ~
~ ;l ~
... f Ocf)- ~
~~w if
.. 0"Z6
r?::J>xll~
on ~"ww:g
V d)...!...!.
~ \')1! ~~ ~
0.. . '" ~- .
QJ W-1c!10 0-
ft
~
ctJ:;
I
}-
JIJ
>
~
=:J
d)
IL I
() !J. I
~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ '" ~ " I
t1> ~ !: ~
W !~g~..',1
, "-1 ] ..:;; I
~ ~~~~I
..----- V) ~ ~ to !
<[ ~ ~ :
U :
I
lL I
I
I- I i
I 1 " .
1\1 I """'- -., .
IL I ,.! f:-I;, ~,'.)1::':~:...,'"
--J.I.I.. I .. :;.::...f~J"h:.~';:~;"~':*~
au - - - - - -, ~;~.:::;': ~ ,,:~,:,;:x'~~'ii~1g:~il~'~\
o I """;'.i~~rr:i~7r";J:;::'r-.::~.~.
i= ._~" ~~r~p;';:~~Hl~i~~?;B~~~~?~,:,,~.
o
I"-
CO
o
()\
()\
~
~
.
~
.~
~'-"................ .~;
)10
*
~
lio '
. ,
1 ~
~~
~ . .
~ -
-:,.,..... :! .
'" P'I ..'~ "5 ~
r
~t'rd' 1i~
III' .
m '1H
JI!"8 t'"O t "
~:;;" i:~
3~l~ i
. -~ sE~
. E [ 0
~~ .;
. Q
~~~
1
~~
()
z
'"1
~ '( ~~
~ I : j
5 1-
'j
.~
~
(f)
Z
o
i=
0..
CY
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
G-
O
CY
Q..
';... o.
8~ ~ ~
- 5
~ : i
: l .
" ~ '1
u ui~
6 z~
W'f
d)' :I -
fi ~~ i
d) 4 i ..
Z 1: ~
.... ct 0 . r
().... d) )Ie
j, Q :n~ ~ ~
ID :3~-[ <I
\J 1r"~W:J:
q) .d)..J-1~
:u \')~0\) ~
g- UI.~~!! ~
'- -.!@\) ~
IL
E i'
:( ~ ~
8 ~ .
0.' I; S
~,1i
~ : ..
d~
'0 j ::
:: 110 :
,. .
CD . ~ l
~ ,~
irl .; i
U ~ p
~ ~ j ~
a. ; q
~~:t
a : ~ ~
: .q :
r H ~
~~~:t
f .. j
~ "; CI ~
-0 ~_.i~
jpiU~
o is.~!}q
as .~;~~::~
(!) nnjjj
w
-I..O"e"@
. , i
~ 1 ~
- i .
~ 8 r
<(8'~
= ~ -
ill s ~ f
() ~~i
S}~:~
a. ~~~
~8~
~ ; i
';; ~ ~ ~
f : ~ .
E~~l
~
~
}-
ill
>
~
J
ill
JL
()
W
i-
<(
U
IL
I-
- ~ I
iIt--_!-
U
" ~ ."!
~ ~ ~ ~l
~ 5~!
~~g~~)
~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~ I
C/) C\l ~ ~ :
'" 0 '
~ 0:
I
; .:_'
(f)
Z
o
f=
Q.
D1
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
D1
D...
~ ; ~
:3 :; {
~n
i ~ ~
s ~ ~
~p
~ 8 '
<1: ~. ~
, ... s ':;
ill sIt
() ~s~
~ l ~ ~
Q. ;j~
~~~
'G t: ~
;q,
f : ~ ~
~ ~ !. I
o ""',-J
~ """
Mt~- ~
~ z
99'Ul!
.. I
~~7.";o~;; - -. .......
.....-'-'".~-~_.
~
. ~:8~
.~.
l
~'~I~ .=. '1.
, ~." ') '; : H J1! '.) .
': '7;Cb M. ""'"...
j f
"
.... -.
;., ill
H'
'I:; .. ~
8 .~ .
... ~ 50
~ ~ ~
. ) a
';. i ~
.. <:: ~
~ ~ t
CD a:~
cd ~; ~
o~='
~ ~.1;
0... ~..
~ ~ $ ..
a '. 0; ~
. '::" .
::(, .. g. s
.. is''
i . ! .;
. ' - 3
~ ~; ~ ':
o
z
~
-!
..
l ~ Q ~
];~~i.:~
!~i~!.~i
B : ~ : ~ :: ~
p' i d.!
t'dQjjj
.OO",,3,~
~
<~. I ~
f~H~J~ " ~
E4~~:' €
_~oQo ';
c;5sa.! ..
< ~.~~ ~
i:HE ':) ~
iiHi ~ ~
:~E~5~ "5
~
j
o
E ~
~~
5 ~
fs
~
< ~
in
i~ ~
i ~ 2
~~~
-~ ~ ?
,-~i:
~
d .~
~. ~~
W..f
0)' :J-
Z ifi~ ~
o >U> 8
d) <(~"
"'~GU)'~
51 0 ~~ UI ~
ill :3~Z6
'\) rr..xG.;g
Q) .d)~UI:J:
~ "~t:)d~
Q) ui"~~~
0: ...I <J1U ~
.
.
-
,
,
,;
}-
w
).
~
::J
ill
IL ~ .
() ~~~r-J
~ ~ ~ ~ j
~] .S i I
I. '" . '" '" I
W .~]~~
.c .!!: '" ;;; I
.il- ':U~~~I
..-- tI)~~ I
<[ - :
U :
I
IL : i.. ~ _', __.
- ; . . - -- b. '.=......'..'1 .B);
I- I . .... B''''!'''~~''*''';,,_'''''''-:;' ~
I '..'"; , I .~ ~':';~!,;>K"F,.j.;;fr'i1:gl?y.
~ ' .. .. .. ~'.. ..<";..~~~>)~....~I~,~\
I '. _:.: _ i..,...,~. ._ _.....-:- ::.__ ':;.Y';-~~I.
' - ----;;;;;~-....~..~'U9'7r/..J.,..~,-:, .'
- -J.I.I- - - - - - -~:f,::;~~+'~~~t~,,~ ~~-~.}:.' -":~N\r:',,^!I
u.a I ~,'-:'f'''''f.,~..,... ."':"u~O~;.!I~~'I' ~YI!~t>'.~..::<
l} i.=-.~b..~: .' r"'- _ ....__
o
l"-
ce
o
()'o
()'o
I
\
\
\
\
\
t ,
i~S~2
t~~ ~i
~~:!~
:~~~"O
~~~!i
5~~i~
{': ~.!s
~ ~ :.~o
.;-if~.&
~;t:~
~
\
I
\
,
\
;,
i
. ~9'~"1
..,....-I-_~.
3 ~7.!~-:Oos ",
"
! ~
2~
i ' .
5~ .
".. ~~
,.; I'll.>" ~ ;....
"'.-0 .
~~r~
III, i~j
y. y -
~ c "
~~; i
: E c ~
n~ 0
~%E
. ".R
I .
'.L.:....,.~I;: ~!
g ~. .....&-..~--=-'93!~ry i ~
~ J "
~
-j
I
-. .
-~
:6
:t
~
2
. I
'"'
i:1 n
(3 ,
I
.~
~
(f)
z
o
i=
Q"
Q!
o
(f)
w
o
o
w
(f)
o
0..
o
(Y
Q..
t '; ~.
, , .
a ~ ~
an
i ~ ~
. .. i
~n
.. ~ i
· 8 .
<( 8~~
I : i i
[j i 10 S
() ~s~
Ci l '0 "
<! :: .. s
rL i5~
. 8 ~
8 , _
::f ~ i
: & ~ ~
i ~ ~ t
~ ~ ~ ~
!
~ ,
~ ): ~ .. 1 -!
i-~nn
-=!'~"I
o ~,~ 'S i :.: ~
Z _:::",
ill ".1'.'
<.!) U~Q~u
~ OOO"P"@
11\
U ui~
Z z,
- IU:!
0)' ::JQ
Z' ~~ a
~ ~~ ~
.,. f () <0- ~
~t-IIJ :i.
:;, 0 CI ~~
(\)::))Xll~
a..lUlU~
'0 d) ...1...1 '
~ d~ Q~ ~
Q '.,!!J-.
II) UI..J 0>0 ...
II:
~ ! i
~ ~ ~
Q 0;: 5
. ,
c" I)
j : t
<is
-0 t ~
~ ~ i
ro ~~~
ill an
~ .a:<
~ ~n
~ ~ ~ I
a ; ~ ~
. ~ I '
rHs
!. ~ ~. ::
~
~
?ff>
~
\
\
\
\
r--
cD
o
a-
IJ'
i
\
~
--"--I.~...
:1 ~;";o.oos
~ to
55 E ~ 0
:~~ ~~
~E~~~
:~~~~
5'20g.!
~ ~~~&
c ;~=~.~
~~-~~(j
~ig~~
~~-:.~:
~~e~~
,
,
~
~
~
~
. .
\i~
;; -
f:~
~.
.~
i=..
. , . ,..
~
(f)
Z
o
~
Cb
CY
o
(f)
w
o
o
ill
(f)
o
~
CY
0...
.. .... 0.:
. , ,
~ !"f Q.
8 -:; .
~i!
-= ~ ~
I ~ i
~ '\ !
, ,
· 8 .
<(8'~
I : ~ i
ill ! ~ ~
~ ~ ":
<( , 1 :
0.. :; ~ 5
a... ;
~ . I
~ ~ ~ "i
i .L
~ ~ s 1
~ ! i
e ~ ~
Hi
~ : !
'; ~ ~
::.. ...
::; ~ i
rn 2:~
..... ~-
~ s.. I)
w a i !
~ q;j
<( ':t
a. -::: It: ..;
8 ~ ~ ~
. -. .
~ i 1 ~
l : . .
~ ~ ~ ::
i
I ~ 1 I
~..~it~]
j = Sq. ~
o !!!!~.~~
Z .'t.._,
ill Hnu.\
<J) .0.0
~ OOO"@"@
,0
...
cj ui~
Z z,
- w::!
. ;:) e
~. ifi:R 3
() ~i ~
d) ZL. ~
.... f ~d) ~
g,\') ~ ~
.. Q" z -n. ..
l:3>x on
nI... Ww :g
\J ILd)JJ .
~ \'j1! ~~ ~
g. ui~@u ~
0:
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
- ---------------- --
COUNTY ROAD D
! >;;;,0>//
~; ~;(;~,V .
t; /,
: i I;, COUNTY ROAD/ ,?,' .
'\.,8
,.1
CQUNT:Y _ ftGAD _ C
,-
___ _J\__L'~~ _/ I
) ,,/;; : '
: )k'
l;l .,!,.;L~\~ ,
/" 'I!_LCQUNTY; L ROAD"-,-BJL: _ u_!
1 j-.
I~
/,
.,
""..+'
.i" ~'I
,.J'c'I'
R08ELAWN AVE
--------
- ---
-------- -- -_...._._---~
.,
-~--
----
---~.-
- - ----------
'I
I, .' f8' ;:;~< lAke ,";/:!'~'I' ,;;,i! .Ii 0 .,s::.:;,>r;<:/j I . J'. ,
. :~:: ' d.T"! I: .,,';<</ I,~ >?::;'" I.',
.1.,.4'!iJ' ,,,Ti!~,~,,:' ./> 11 'i 'cH/'WI:, /::r\" ," ",
,I :..r. """,. f/p) :j'~IIi':"i )':.~S?/ , /)<; :!.~i ",\ \.'L
pc,Lr,i" '\, ,,)iLi I ._ 'c ~jL//: , >",;P" I ,:", II :.
JYII~:.i'J ~. ',IT:' "U"!'!j(!, "iB" j(::..< ",1:',: "
'" ' ;, I . .. ,: , J!ci.~" ,,' ,I,:i !
'5~'!11~ I, "I :, 31 /~:~:~T'j;L\\ld, '\~(; :,PiI""" , ,I,i,' :
~. .' 1 ;', I ::1..'<' Wi:"!l'!" ! '"~ I liZ iC .'] ,,_Y''''Y I
:~ I j . .!' "~~~ ,iI~l~':','{;.:~:i! [';, ~J'~~, ':;<-/~ , '
Q,,/,,:':;}'r'l, I: ., I. ,T':II";:!~:<ZII""~~~C"-'" . ,)~i,l,:;-," I' II .jJ;;"
LI,\;.i "CC B~ne".:,:
I,: L'i;,.: ,I,,', "",'," ,ii Lake , ,". ..';, ., .... . .co ,'I
"II " ~~C ',I,'it!.1::!:1? 'iW I' . "'!;.,,e,',"l;"["!i
, ~'"":,, ", "")!'... ,Zifitn'HII ..;;:,>c.",~iIi //:.", ,,:~I '>,i'.,,,
I lMJ'S'u1l",,c, UJ;.OUNT'/i "I'. ,It'e ii'
,.l.L'~ , \ H' ,,'~"'~S,' : .'1' '~I:(J:)I: ,\ ,:,:j,j,.:
~~:~t:, '<, 7'-- .~..... i,"~~~, ~i', /,,,i~~"\ '~'. ,~':1.:.1" ;,-~:{:t,
J-, ,I, 'i ,\ :l'iF,~,J~\,{c1111Iri~I<";tT '~~~;~I):rl\;.;~B'"
!.~f~' ",1, =2, [ ~:::: t'f. C' ,",, ]I,'jl"'k! I' 'h,li:): .
';u,~ 'ii?'"I,', Ii .~I ~~:~i;i~ ,I'c IT '" ,;;~,~;~,i.J : <~<
I~i~:",c' "',.., -\:] , ' 'I :#11" ""),,'/::,;:,,,
~"!C.:111'" :',',"',1).:'.:,,"" ",tfr','j I ~L ",~: 'L..j~) , :(". ",.' :-0"},i,l~
',Clelli! ..L ~:P' "j,'1 r i:L,,';' ,P1~
i I i~HB ,h''j' "!;;' 'u (;~ .;,~{. :
'I I Pi" '~ (J I:i;','I~,,,~
, !!:iiI" ' :,p i i W~jJ'\S I
I:':" I Jff'i~ I.~l'!#. : I '.~~,:~: 1:'~1: i I
I
L___
; I
City ZoDlng Number of
DeslgnallDD Pareela
RI 12
D Vacant 1
Flag Lot
Otber Pareels
Lakes
I Current Flag Lots
LARPENTEUR AVE
Bcued 0" parcel.r with _lot width I"" tlum 40 feet
and parcel are4 greater than J 1,000 square/eet.
~
,i,leo., ;COUNj~,R~AO, D" ''''''1,'['':1 ""':'",L,.\ );:;~ ,AI }", I,l~,~" J'/"\'"
,tJ"~'Q,':W,j1//,/ Tj.,-;.!.'--',/i, /~.:-'rj;l".p[J' ;'L:;t.,}':,~;i~,' Q", JOS~ine "L1.ju" <,lL',;;: Ni> l /t /.:.(,iif (:;::{
, ~?(&.~!.D;--'/ ~:,,~:~.t~;"~rl' ,/t::;fi ~ _ ,~t, ;'IU') '''f\\ '0 I cqi c1"~;, '9i;;/J' H+ ,1
.' J~E0~:'.';;,'V/I'Y"." 'ifY '1:.Jil'~, ,r.~, 'i1'i!ill'. ,,""'~E.!~,\" ~:/: I ~j : 1.,+'. X,;::;,! /,;',1/1.'>'; I' i
: %9:""7/:. /1'1 I, I) If\lll..J.fJi.Jfu'S~I) ;;+f' iWI ,,/"'~'; 'i
'I'.,?f;"v ci.uNb..lRoJlc~ . I Ll "~, :,/ ..~Lci,c8t'. 'J:..)~.,YlZ{ifi"/ :jill';',;;. ,,' II" ~du ,,;:c.>'/:,'; ,;\ \, ,i
;j / ,--.-- "CT. 1-' : ' ',",' J. '1""U& I' "'fe_. 1'>/T1
/" ,i( ,Liil..,I~';"~'''''' ~' i" ir' m ! iii' jl,','..J..-J" /Vj'" ;;} ,
I. / .' HI' I ,~4 j"rr "r' 4,___...1........::-:- OIl: '1L..i-: =M~,~j!l~,~~--';f!U/ ~ '~.1, ,,<;-',:
,/ii! . , '"rl"l ',/',1 mi' I ""',IT ,T '''['''11.
"I'e! ,ii:. .j'" :~~[l '",: ;~' L.~I ~ :/'i{~\l " I ,.'<4 ,\':c;:.:., I:;: c,.','
"III i IT \,~,I FL.~!i_".I' ....'i "~':';0' _! ~] ii,-,(I ,
~~C.O;U~~!!.O~D..C...~,.,. >';;\::C:z'T' .:'~':'::~"I. .. L__~ .... '. \:i~{LdJ"[::J J.iWil' I
, I' :.:4;C' J~i[?~'U~:;;" .'II::~~'D' ,r .-l2l.1:i'~\:"lB;;.en ~,' , ,""
, ,! ' ....', :':2 r. . : fl, 'j" .! i"~ cL,.' ,
--, ,II /1,,/,; I,: e'L .,:"j . "1;W!'~JL!~1~;,"i';:'7:1~;; I '
f/,L) ..~i~. "'-~I3i'/ "/'w'<i:.'"",,,, "" ,;:'f"1~1:'.C~
I /1 ," ~ 'i = 'I . fi!i1,':':tc ' leLl,ill' k I Ur" il<! ' "!II' I!:;\, '
,1'1. n' : I'; L:.'uL, 11 I. IJ ,rt ( , . ,. . ~ rp: !:iUjl u"cJi'{F':'112) I rc, ,',M" " ~,,-_/"i"; H., h ,-
, It -, ~OU~TY.U~~OAOI t '; 'oJ i. ::c..~l.lJ~ll"'. ..' 'I L." 1;' 'II.,'B "i ",I"
il;-{ ;:i~~ - ~'. ~~\~Tirc',::r '~~Jll:.:y~'" 0'_1 ,+",~fi, .,i~ .i)[j ';,:. ~t:;.i\i;'2\;
'I' ~. ''''I''i':!'JI ::-C11F1L\1tJGJh:" ,:q.:tL: OJ< -', ,,"JI\~"J[;", ''\.''iii''i.,L~I:i
'"-/~---'-\" ~s;c~tfiji{;;~W;tJE;Hill~~~~:~,iJ~~,ij 'f~ln:: ;.11 'Hifl,: ,L~I ~' 1,':Hh":f,J'.
',I.u' . ~ .tJ'~r<< ,~,i! '~I;.~"~.:1Jiii:IJ,,,j' I,L, i "'~!-Ic'lli U.!r S'~i; '" ' r~ ", :".T" II '"
c. '~.".\'r.1'. ' ,'L~",'o"'./. ,. L.'~ ,:0),:',,:, CT, I:i~ 'III ',i" '\, I, , "_ ~ \
_.~ ~ ~.t ~"E~:, .~..\~tjt:i' I~M.,,_~i~l1L'1tt2;;~O~ c~1
Potential Flag Lots D~acant 331 11....'1 ~ M. 4J"'I\~r." I: : rill , !tj,',:
· Flag Lot J --, ';:;':RP~~T.UR AVE u -,,~.' "oW': ~.L~~
'.
Otber Parcel. Baaedon_1.J with ",."".lolw1dJh ~ than JJjf.et
Lake. and parcel area _Ie, than 22,000 __f..'.
"Ftag Lots" are generally defined as single family lots which haw very little (30 to 40 feet)
offtontage on a public road system. but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main ponion ofdte lot, where the house is constructed, is generaUyset back 100 feet
or more fforn the public street frontage.
The City of
.~
Minnesota
Prepared by:
Community Development DepartmeDt
July 8,1999
.
Soareel:
'Ram!ey County OIS Baae Map 01199
'Ram!ey County..- laX..... 02197
'City ofRosevllle GIS
o 1000 2000 3000 Feet A
III
"
City of Roseville Flag Lot Study
-~.~
COUNTY ROAD D
Hej r-'<~,
. ,~t~~~
L .,J,,\'-"~~~t
COUNTY~i!~~D_ c'
. ~I
~~ '
b-"~ I :c I, J
I~ ~~~~- -
,r'" 1- '1 ,
y, ~,; 'C:I~
~d--'-, L]I I I
\~__il>UrZ:, :::
~'"-LbL} ',:/ <)/
_~-,'I~, "--:~
r";'cc{)I";L:ji/' 'I;'~:
I '~\''''_'",..11,',',_,~
~' ;-\~&~~,~~:~~i,~_-';i:~I::~J,---
'q['~;__L'L ~! :::]1
"~~ "',_ j~=[~~' ;,~;~~,~1;~bl*~~;~~
-h'f]7i2:--tt"\_~]~~Sj~J'&1:~!J~iCj
ROSELAWN AVE
FC" T-
, I /j.i/._ /1 I
/;/:_)'\".,:'=~~,.
1.;R/ ('r ~-'!*~':ILJI!''\_1_
if! V'L tCGUHTY-1 ROAD - B t
~
/,
Current Flag Lots
City Zoning Number of
Designation Pareel.
RI 12
D Vacant 1
Flag Lot
'---.: Other Parcels BfJSed on parceIa with aveI'''8" lot width I... than 40 fur
Lakes and parcel areD groat.,. than //.000 squarefeeJ.
COUNTY ROAD D
I ~~tn ~0~il/lb/\ 1;-,I~~3H iF;I~~t]~f0G
: 1__., 0i~ / J.-<):;"-"-/.i I L~\y~!~4"I'li'C- -,? :-.~c:[B' ~~~
'"W*,'" 7' '1" 'i'- ,i '"I' ') '[-i;-' , r::<!'1l-C]',,';)' "'T' ,
G~i:e'''~l/' / ,I i"1( I, I fi"-: -:- U i\)rjEiJ:lli!JllitjIb~,1 \,
\/;,fy/ ' " /1" ,Ii 1"'- j !" _\c~".cl"-I"""BltJ,i;, J.
V7C ' cOu....T-Y~~R9A1iLCJ : ;_. ,~~t ~j J::~:.t.JE '~Pi, \,~~:
,//, .. :Tr~i - I: Ii ~ '1 ~ ~,' I~~r:ii~:' ",r,~
If/ -Ir-I, '1,,-,: "'''1" '''L' ~I"
,I /1': ;iI_'IUI,~ \,/----[a 1! -j, -,'] !~!: I--t ~_ __./ I
/"'7 ,'i,l' ],__J 's~i -J .. --~ ._>:[' 1- I. I ,.:i
I,~ t.._ ~_ I' f!1 --;:1 I ; td
ii :~., I 11 T :fi'l _ I \ Z
___~__CqU.N~ ROAD_CI "u.!' ,_.--'~--'------~ -,~
1 'I" '-jll[;I-
i I!,'
I
I"
7 , I'"
i ' ,,'
: Potential Flag Lots
City Zonlnl Number of
De.ltnation Pareel.
RI 242
R2 3
D Vaeant 31
Flag Lot
~ Other Parcels
Lake.
B...tti o. j>Il1'WliJ with _lot wldth".,u" than J 3S fur
and 1"""01 ""'. grea/m' than 22,000 .qtJare fut
The City of
Tf)[f"'~
li~~
. Minnesota
"Flag Lot'i" are general1y defined as single family tots which have vel)' little (30 to 40 feet)
of frontage on a public road system. but have a long driveway (60 to 100 feet or more).
The main por1ion of the lot, where the house is constructed, is generally set back 100 feet
or more funn the public street ftontage.
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
July 8, 1999
So.....:
0JIamsey County GIS S... Map 01/99
0JIamsey County _... daU IW97
"City of RalOYtll. GIS
o
1000 2000 3000 Feet
A
N
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
DISCUSSION/DIRECTION
DATE: 07/14/99
ITEM NO:
Department Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section:
PRESENT A nONS
Item Description: PROPOSALS FOR FLAG LOT ORDINANCE (PF3133)
1.0 BACKGROUND
On May 24, 1999, the Roseville City Council considered the request by Seth Eggessa regarding a
variance and lot split on property located at 1992 Cleveland A venue. The City Council's action,
in essence, directed staff to work with the City Attorney and Mr. Eggessa to eliminate the
number of variances being requested for the site and to review potential impacts created by
flag lots.
2.0 AL TERNA TIVES REVIEWED
Since the City Council's action, staff developed a list of five potential actions the City could
pursue. These were presented to the Council on June 26, 1999. The Council asked for further
work on alternative 2.2.
2.1 Interim Use Permit - Based on Mr. Eggessa's statements to staff, Planning
Commission and City Council, the City could issue an interim use permit (Section
1012.09) that limits the number of years the existing home is allowed to be located on the
subject lot. The permit could be approved for any time duration, such as 5, 7 or 10 years
in length and would allow the proposed structure to be constructed and the existing home
to be removed at the end of the permit period. Once removed the parcel would be
brought into conformity.
2.2 Flag lots - This proposal requires a text amendment to the zoning ordinance related to lot
size and configurations to allow creation of flag lots under certain circumstances. Staff
could research language from other metropolitan cities and provide the Council with a
draft text amendment for their consideration. Should the Council agree with the proposed
text amendment, staff would forward the proposed modification to the Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation.
2.3 Accessory Apartments - This proposal also requires research and a text amendment to
the zoning ordinance to allow separate apartment houses on single family residential
parcels under certain circumstances. Staff could research how other cities address
accessory apartments/homes that are utilized by a member of the principal owner family.
2.4 Grant a Variance - Staff can pursue modifications in the proposal presented to the
Council on May 24 to eliminate all variances except one for lot width on the proposed
PF3118 - Planning Commission (071499) Page I of 2
new parcel. This proposal would require the finding of hardship and acceptance by the
Council of the creation of a flag lot (no modification in the zoning ordinance would be
required). The existing home would still be considered a pre-existing non-conforming
use do to its side yard setback infraction; however, the lot would be conforming to the
City Code.
2.5 Deny the Request - The City Council has the option to deny the request should they
conclude that the above options are unacceptable.
3.0 DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL 6/26/99
The Council requested further work and discussion of alternative 2, Flag Lots, and requested the staff
to draft an ordinance which would allow for the use of flag lots on sites where the size and frontage
would allow for 2 or more homes at a density of 4 or less homes per acre (11,000 s.f. lots or
greater). Staff has reviewed the possible number of flag lots that could be create and found that there
are approximately 250 parcels in the city with 135 feet of frontage and over 22,000 s.f. in area. Not
all of these parcels are developable for additional flag lots because of the location of existing
structures each site. Further mapped information will be available at Planning Commission meeting.
4.0 SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should review the alternatives listed above and the attached draft flag lot
ordinance, and provide comments and recommendations to the City Council for the work session
on July 19, 1999. No formal ordinance decision is sought at this time.
Attachment: Flag Lot Draft Ordinance
Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (651-490-2232)
Q:\ComDev\Planning Files\PF3133\PC-FlagLot(071499).doc
PF3118 - Planning Commission (07] 499) Page 2 of 2
,.
.
PF-3/5>
~Q
J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTIONS 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) and SECTION 1103.06 (Lot
Standards) and Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) CREATING A
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING FLAG LOTS WITHIN OF THE ROSEVILLE
CITY CODE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. Because the City of Roseville has few remaining undeveloped
parcels, there is a need to provide methods to subdivide remaining large, undeveloped low
density parcels to accommodate additional development. One method of providing for such
development is by creating "flag lots". The purpose of this Ordinance is provide a definitions
for "flag lot" and establish a process for the review and adoptions of subdivisions which
include "flag lots".
Section 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) IS hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the required frontage or lot
width on a public right-of-way. The minimal width does not allow for construction of the
principle structure at the minimum required front setback line, requiring an extended driveway to
reach an area large enough for the principle structure. The lot has more than the required lot area
for the zoning district in which it is located.
Section 3. Amendments. Section 1l03.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel into 2
buildable lots with the following conditions:
1. The flag lot shall have frontage on and physical access to a public right of way.
2. The frontage shall be a minimum of 40% of the required lot frontage for the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. The flag lot shall have a paved driveway a minimum of 10 feet in width,
constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles.
4. The flag lot shall be assessed for improvements based on frontage or area but
shall be no more than the equivalent to a standard non-comer lot.
S. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principle structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
,
,
Committee to determine the least visual and physical impact on adjacent
properties. The Development Review Committee may consider the placement of
sidewalks, driveways, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building
height, heating and air conditioners, and lighting.
6. The proposed flag lot and subdivision shall not require installation of additional
public utilities.
7. The principle structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow for
further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
8. The flag lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review
Committee.
9. The certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications.
Section 4. Amendments. Section 1104.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby amended
by adding Section 1104.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this day of July, 1999.
Daniel G. Wall, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
Approved as to Form and Content
City Attorney
Date
Q:\Planning Files\3133 JlagLots\Ordinance RPCA(071499).doc
PF3/35
Morrison, Pat
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Welsch, Dennis
Monday, June 28,19992:22 PM
Jamnik, Joel; Paschke, Thomas
Morrison, Pat
Flag Lot Ordinance
Joel/Thomas: Attached is the first draft of the Council's requested flag lot ordinance. Please review and add/delete. Also
consider if this ordinance must be setn to the Planning Commission for hearings (it is not part of the zoning code) or
whether this should go directly to the Council. On this issue, timing is important if the Council is to have a first reading on
IT[J
this in July or if the Planning Commission is to consider it at their July 14. meeting.
Ordinance
RPCA(071499).doc Thanks, Dennis.
01
\~
1
-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTIONS 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions) and: SECTION 1103.06 (Lot
Standards) and Section 1104.04.04 E (Minor Subdivisions) CREATING A
PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING FLAG LOTS WITHIN OF THE ROSEVILLE
CITY CODE
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Purpose. Because the City of Roseville has few remaining undeveloped
parcels, there is a need to provide methods to subdivide remaining large, undeveloped low
density parcels to accommodate additional development. One method of providing for such
development is by creating "flag lots". The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a
definition for a "flag lot" and establish a process for the review and adoptions of
subdivisions which include "flag lots".
Sedion 2. Amendments. Section 1101.02 (Su~division Definitions) is hereby
amended by adding the following definition:
Flag Lot - A Flag Lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the required frontage or lot
width on a public right-of-way. The minimal width does not allow for construction of the
principle structure at the minimum required front setback line, requiring an extended
driveway to reach an area large enough for the principle structure. The lot has more than the
required lot depth and area for the zoning district in which it is. located.
Sedion 3. Amendments. Section 1103.06K is hereby amended to add flag lot
provisions as follows:
Section 1103.06 K. Flag Lots. A flag lot may be created by subdividing a parcel into 2
buildable lots with the following conditions:
1. The flag lot shall have frontage on and physical ~ccess to a public right of way.
2. The frontage shall be a minimum of 40% of the required lot frontage for the
zoning district in which it is located.
3. The flag lot shall have a paved driveway a minimum of 12 feet in width,
constructed to a strength capable of supporting emergency vehicles.
4. The flag lot shall be assessed for improvements based on frontage or area but
shall be no more than the equivalent to a standard non-corner lot.
5. The mimimum structure setback from any existing adjoining structure shall be
thirty (30) feet.
."
6. The building design, site layout, and landscaping of the principle structure and
any accessory buildings shall be reviewed by the Development Review
Committee to determine the least visual and physical impact on adjacent
properties. The Development Review Committee may consider the placement of
sidewalks, driveways, decks and patios, windows, building entries, building
height, heating and air conditioners, and lighting.
7. The proposed flag lot and minor subdivision shall not require installation of
additional public utilities.
8. The principle structure shall be situated on the lot in a manner that may allow
for further lot and right-of-way development in the future if adjoining property
becomes available.
9. The flag lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Review
Committee.
10. The certificate of survey for both parcels shall be submitted following the
requirements of Section 1104.04 E (Minor Subdivisions). The applicant may be
requested to provide utility and right-of-way dedications.
Sedion 4. Amendments. Section ll04.04 of the Roseville City Code is hereby amended
by adding Section ll04.04 F. as follows:
Paragraph 3: The minor subdivision process may be used to create a flag lot.
Sedion 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on passage and
publication.
Passed this day of July, 1999.
Daniel G. Wall, Mayor
ATTEST:
Steven R. Sarkozy, City Manager
Approved as to Form and Content
City Attorney
Date
Q:\Planning Files\3133_FlagLots\Ordinance RPCA(071499).doc