2014_05_07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Page 11 were that a zoning ordinance was not a good predictor of land use, as there were many other 506 forces in urban settings that drove minimum lot sizes. 507 If the City of Roseville’s lot size dimensions were reduced to 9,500 square feet and a minimum lot 508 width of 75’, Ms. Peterson advised that there would only be a total of 52 parcels throughout the 509 city that could potentially be subdivided in the future, or less than 0.096 parcels, many of which 510 were in the Shoreline District and would not be affected by this change anyway. In a closer look 511 at those parcels that could be subdivided, Ms. Peterson noted that to do so, the existing homes 512 would typically need to be demolished in order to accomplish that subdivision. Given the current 513 housing stock and their respective conditions, Ms. Peterson opined that the high quality of that 514 housing stock would not make it economically viable to demolish them just to construct one 515 additional house. 516 In conclusions, Ms. Peterson summarized that reducing the existing minimum lot requirements, 517 55% of the property owners in LDR-1 Zoning Districts would become conforming, and benefit, 518 with negligible impact on residential density and land use patterns in the community. 519 Discussion 520 Member Boguszewski questioned how such a reduction would benefit existing homeowners 521 having non-conforming lots, if they were grandfathered in. 522 Ms. Peterson noted that, if a homeowner was attempting to refinance their property or sell it, it 523 added another layer of complexity to get a certificate. 524 Mr. Paschke concurred, advising that it would serve to clear up a current cloud for grandfathered 525 or non-conformity, aside from the preference to address ordinance non conformities, which 526 should also be a goal to avoid issues and/or concerns in the future. In this case, Mr. Paschke 527 noted that over the last five years, staff had seen an increase in banks or title companies 528 becoming more stringent in how they support loans for properties with such conformity issues. 529 Mr. Paschke advised that the current language and lot size requirements went back to 1959 when 530 the first zoning ordinance was created, but was not followed. Mr. Paschke opined that, even 531 though staff supported things throughout the years that didn’t comply with code to correct those 532 measures, they thought it best to modify and create an ordinance that sufficiently addressed 533 things. While not sure how it was justified, Mr. Paschke questioned how the majority of plats 534 created in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s were approved with the current lot size standards clearly 535 on the books. 536 However, as the issue became more problematic with lending institutions and title companies 537 moving forward, Mr. Paschke suggested that it would be prudent to make this revision that would 538 then bring 93% of those homes into compliance, and have no detrimental impact to the City by 539 creating any significant opportunities to increase density, which was not even a consideration for 540 this recommended reduction in lot sizes. Mr. Paschke opined that this would mean the City was 541 doing its job in addressing non-conformity and bring those properties into compliance with a code 542 more appropriate to how the community had realistically been developed and built. 543 Member Boguszewski understood that rationale; but cautioned that future conversations should 544 not revive the 2010 discussions that became an emotional issue. Member Boguszewski advised 545 that during those earlier discussions, the thought process seemed to lead into future 546 development; but now Mr. Paschke’s explanation explained that it was an attempt to address 547 wrongs occurring in the past with a situation that apparently arbitrarily set standards versus future 548 development or redevelopment. Member Boguszewski sought further detail on the conformity 549 issue, and why banks did not flag those issues in the past, but seemed to do so now; and 550 whether the intent of this revision was to protect people, and whether or not that same issue 551 existed in the past or if the process was flawed before or after the 2010 recommendations. 552 Mr. Lloyd advised that part of the public’s concerns may have been an unintended consequence 553 of 2010 zoning code revisions, and inconsistencies found in recommended lot size reduction 554 proposals that were not consistent with the existing subdivision code. Mr. Lloyd confessed that 555 the delay in taking action on those proposals and a revised subdivision code had unfortunately 556 been deferred longer than staff anticipated due to other work load requirements. Mr. Lloyd 557 clarified that this was not a new problem, just that addressing it as a part of those previous 558