2016-03-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the possibility of doubling the residential density in the future, despite the developer’s 90 intentions to build single-family homes. The LDR-2 lots in Wheaton Woods are, by contrast, 91 much smaller, and are not conducive to future redevelopment as two-family homes. 92 Moore’s Farrington EstatesDenial Finding C: In addition, the minimum single home lot 93 sizes and density allowed in the LDR-2 district are not consistent with the surrounding 94 neighborhood of large and average size single family lots. 95 Wheaton Woods Lots 9 –12, Block 2in the proposed LDR-2 district would directly abut a 96 relatively large LDR-1 parcel and other average-sized parcelsfartherto the west, but 97 Planning Division staff believes the proposed small lotswould be consistent with the 98 extensive small-lot, duplex, and multi-familyresidential development in the LDR-2, MDR, 99 and HDR-1 districtsacross the adjacent streets.As mentioned earlier, the proposed small, 100 single-family lots would also serve as a transition from the denser residential areas south and 101 east of the site to the less-dense neighborhood to the north and west. 102 Moore’s Farrington Estates Denial Finding D: This property, as part of the 103 Comprehensive Planning Process in 2008 and 2009, had been zoned LDR1 after deliberate 104 analysis, study, and deliberation by City staff and City Council. 105 Unlike the rejected Moore’s Farrington Estates proposal, the Wheaton Woodsproperty did 106 not receive such attention during thatComprehensive Planning process or in the subsequent 107 zoning update process that was completed in 2010.The 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s 108 treatment of Planning District 5 focuses primarily on the Rice Street corridorand otherwise 109 “reinforces existing land use patterns.” 110 Moore’s Farrington Estates Denial Finding E: The proposed plat creates lot sizes that do 111 not meet thelot standards for single-family required in Chapter 1103.06 of the Subdivision 112 Code. 113 The section of the Subdivision Code cited in this finding, adopted in 1956, says that the 114 “minimum lot dimensions designed for single-family detached dwelling developments shall 115 be” 100 feet of width and depth and 12,500 square feet for corner lots, and 85 feet in width, 116 110 feet in depth, and 11,000 square feet for non-corner lots. And when Roseville’s first 117 zoning ordinance was adopted in 1959, the residential districts were consistent with these 118 standards because the Zoning Code did not anticipate that kind of small-lot, single-family, 119 detached residential development that has occurred in more recent decades through Planned 120 Unit Development approvals. With the adoption ofthe currentZoning Codein 2010, 121 standards for small lots intended for development of single-family, detached dwellingswere 122 establishedin the LDR-2 and MDR districts which are smaller than the standards of 123 §1103.06. The fact that smaller lot size standards were created for development of one- 124 family, detached dwellings in LDR-2 and MDR districts leads one to the conclusion that the 125 lot size standards of the Subdivision Code were understood to relate only to the LDR-1 126 district—and not to apply to single-family development lots in other districts. 127 Moreover, on April 21, 2014, thePlanning Commission and City Council approved a 128 preliminary plat for an initial version of what became the Garden Station development. In 129 part, this plat created 11 small lots designed for development of single-family detached 130 dwellings,which conformedto the minimum standards for such lots in the Medium-Density 131 Residential zoning district,but which were significantly substandard to the requirements in 132 §1103.06. Here again, thisaction leads to the conclusion that the provisions of §1103.06 do 133 not apply to alllots intended for development of single-family, detached homes. 134 PF16-003_RPCA_20160302 Page 4of 8