Laserfiche WebLink
<br />RCA Exhibit A <br /> Shoreview §204.030(C)(4): Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight <br />59 <br />street lines, or radial to curved streetlines. <br />60 <br /> New Brighton §26-12(4): Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to the street <br />61 <br />line. <br />62 <br /> Falcon Heights §109-51(a): The lot size, width, depth, shape and orientation and the <br />63 <br />minimum building setback lines shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and <br />64 <br />for the type of development and use contemplated. <br />65 <br />(b): Lot dimensions shall conform to chapter 113, zoning. <br />66 <br />Most of these regulations are s those <br />67 <br />cases, the regulation of lot size and shape followed sections establishing standards for street <br />68 <br />design, right-of-way configuration, and the size and shape of blocks. Subdivision codes arranged <br />69 <br />in such a way seem to have focused on regulating new growth of their communities through plats <br />70 <br />and developments that converted agricultural or unused land into residential, commercial, and <br />71 <br />industrial subdivisions. Section 1103.06F establishes a requirement that aims to ensure lots are <br />72 <br />designed with regular, predictable shapes. Lots might be sort of pie-shaped around cul-de-sacs or <br />73 <br />curves, but they should be more or less rectangular along straight streets. When the application of <br />74 <br />that regulation is in the context of a new plat with new streets, such regulations are quite sensible <br />75 <br />and compliance is relatively easy to achieve. But Planning Division staff asserts that this same <br />76 <br />provision is much less sensibleand compliance is much more difficultwhen minor <br />77 <br />subdivisions of two or three lots are proposed parcel by parcel. <br />78 <br />In 2007, the City Council engaged the community in a Single-Family Lot Split Study to evaluate <br />79 <br />the impact of minor subdivisions on the community and to develop an appropriate course of <br />80 <br />action for regulating them into the future. The study yielded several recommendations. These <br />81 <br />recommendations are most germane to the present topic: <br />82 <br />A. General Single-Family Residential Subdivision Policy <br />83 <br />1. The City Council should continue to allow single-family residential lots to be <br />84 <br />subdivided or split if they meet the standards set forward by the City Code. (Consensus <br />85 <br />Recommendation) <br />86 <br />B. Subdivision Code <br />87 <br />2. The City Council should amend the Subdivision Ordinance to include variance <br />88 <br />language not currently found in this code by reiterating the variance language found in <br />89 <br />the Zoning Code. (Consensus Recommendation) <br />90 <br />3. The City Council should amend the lot line requirement within the Subdivision <br />91 <br />Ordinance to require that lot lines are perpendicular to the front property line unless a <br />92 <br />variance is obtained. (Consensus Recommendation) <br />93 <br />7.a. The City Council should allow the creation of flag lots and continue to hear them <br />94 <br />through the variance process. (Majority Recommendation6 votes) <br />95 <br />7.b. The City Council should prohibit the creation of flag lots within the City. (Minority <br />96 <br />Recommendation2 votes) <br />97 <br />Based on the report and the input from public hearings and Planning Commission <br />98 <br />recommendations, the City Council amended the Subdivision Code in 2008 such that §1103.06F <br />99 <br /> the <br />100 <br />PROJ0001_Lot lines and sizes(20160504) <br /> <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br /> <br />