My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Ord_1501
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Ordinances
>
1500
>
Ord_1501
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/30/2018 2:25:50 PM
Creation date
5/24/2016 11:13:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Ordinances
Meeting Date
5/23/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
Ordinance #
1501
Ordinance Title
Ordinance Amending Title 11 of the City of Code Clarifying the Intent and Applicability of CertainSubdivision Regulations
Ordinance Date Passed
5/23/2016
Ordinance Date Published
5/31/2016
Publication Type
Ordinance
Publication Newspaper
Review
Publication Date (lst)
5/31/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ts which are abbrobriate for their location and suitable for residential <br />development often have: <br />a. side lot lines that are ap�roximatel�perpendicular or radial to front the lot line(s) <br />of the parcel(s) bein� subdivided, or <br />b. side lot lines that are a�proximatel�parallel to the side lot line(s) of the parcel(s) <br />being subdivided, or <br />c. side lot lines that are both a�prorimatel�erpendicular or radial to the front lot <br />line(s) and approxiinately parallel to the side lot line(s) of the parcel(s) bein� <br />subdivided. <br />2 It is acknowledged, ho�vever, that propertyboundaries represent the limits of <br />propertv ownership, and subdivision applicants often cannot chanQe those <br />boundaries to inake them more regular if the boundaries have compleY or unusual <br />ali�mnents. Subdivisions of such irre�ularl -�ped parcels may be considered, <br />but the shapes of proposed new lots miaht be found to be too irre�ular, and <br />conseauentiv, atiblications can be denied for failin� to confonn adeauatelv to the <br />purposes for which simple, re�ular parcel shapes are considered most appropriate <br />and suitable for residential development. <br />3. F1aQ lots, which abut a street with a relatively narrow strip of land (i.e., the "flag <br />pole") that passes beside a neighborinQ parcel and have the bulk of land area (i.e., <br />the "flag,") located behind that neighborin�parcel, are not permitted, because the <br />fla� pole does not meet the required minimum lot ��idth accordinQ to the standard <br />rneasureinent procedure. <br />�F: Double frontage lots shall not be pennitted, eYcept: <br />Where lots back upon a thoroughfare, in which case vehicular and pedestrian <br />access between the lots and the thoroughfare shall be prohibited, and (Ord. 216, 7- <br />5-1956) <br />2. Where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise <br />unreasonable. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least <br />twenty (20) feet greater than the minimum in order to allow space for a protective <br />screen planting along the back lot line and also in such instances vehicular and <br />pedestrian access between lots and the thoroughfare shall be prohibited. (Ord. <br />245, 5-101958) <br />�G: Lots abutting upon a water course, drainage way, channel or stream shall have an <br />additional depth or width as required to assure house sites that meet shoreland ordinance <br />requirements and that are not subject to flooding. <br />�H: In the subdividing of any land, due regard shall be shown for all natural features such as <br />tree growth, water courses, historic spots or similar conditions which, if preserved, will <br />add attractiveness and value to the proposed development. (Ord. 216, 7-5-1956; amd. <br />1995 Code) -- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.