Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br /> <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF <br />SEPTEMBER 8, 1999: <br /> <br />6c. Planning File 3133. City of Roseville request for an amendment to <br />Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions), Section 1103.06 (Lot <br />Standards), and Section 1104.04E (Minor Subdivisions) of the City <br />Code, creating a procedure for approving Flag Lots. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing opened the public hearing and explained the proposed ordinance <br />amendment discussed at the August Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />The proposed flag lot ordinance has ten conditions. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if lots to be subdivided as flag lots could be reviewed <br />based on taxable value. More study is necessary. <br /> <br />Member Egli asked if the "flag" area still contained 11,000 s.f. (no). <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if there was screening required by the flag lot, to <br />protect privacy of adjoining parcels. Thomas Paschke suggested adding screening <br />phase in condition #10. <br /> <br />Member Olson stated she was concerned about the frontage; should it be more <br />than 40%. The frontage should include the addition of setback adjacent to the <br />flag lot so as to not create lots which cannot comply with setbacks on comer lots. <br /> <br />A letter from Phyllis Christofferson (8.30.99) was read into the record. She <br />opposed the flag lot proposal. (letter attached to minutes) <br /> <br />There was no public comment offered. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion. Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend <br />that the Planning Commission affirm to the City Council the current prohibition <br />of flag lots. <br /> <br />Ayes: 2, Egli, Olson <br />Nays: 3, Klausing, Wilke, Cunningham <br />Abstain: 1, Mulder <br />Motion failed. <br /> <br />Member Mulder noted there are 250 parcels which could be divided; there would <br />be strong opposition. This changes the character and conditions of adjacent <br />parcels. New houses should have to meet all setbacks. The Planning <br />Commission should send a clear recommendation to the City Council not <br />permitting flag lots throughout the city. Each lot should be reviewed on its <br />merits. <br />