2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A a. PROJECT FILE 0001, Amendment 4 1 Request by the City of Roseville to clarify regulations in City Code, Title 11 2 (Subdivisions) pertaining to configuration of boundaries for new single-family lots 3 and to clarify applicability of specified lot size standards. 4 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0001 at 7:04 p.m. 5 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report dated May 6 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes and specific to minimum residential lot sizes 7 (Section 1103.06.A and B) and side lot lines (Section 1103.06.F). Mr. Lloyd presented 8 some graphical depictions of hypothetical subdivisions, attached hereto and made a 9 part hereof, to illustrate how the existing requirements can produce lot shapes that might 10 not be intended by the code even though the subdivision might conform to the 11 requirements. 12 Mr. Lloyd noted that some Subdivision Code language remained from when Ordinance 13 216 was originally adopted in April of 1956 and compared with reality were no 14 long applicable in a nearly-developed first-ring suburb such as Roseville. 15 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd provided verbal and illustrative examples of 16 flag lots in Roseville and other metropolitan suburbs that were not within the confines of 17 intention. 18 For clarification purposes, Chair Boguszewski noted that the changes outlined and 19 recommended by staff in the report, lines 142 164 were mostly directive with 20 subsections guiding and defining the basic rationale for the language revisions. Chair 21 Boguszewski noted these provided some flexibility in interpreting general guidelines 22 when considering those lots considered suitable and appropriate, while giving some 23 semblance of a parallel or perpendicular nature. 24 Mr. Lloyd agreed that was a good characterization, with the intent of the code to provide 25 for regular and predictable lots, but the ability for review on a case by case basis. 26 Chair Boguszewski opined that, with agreement from his colleagues, this language could 27 be incorporated with the other recommended language revisions, keyed back to the 28 underlying zoning district, and all within one motion; as confirmed by Mr. Lloyd. 29 Member Daire clarified with Mr. Lloyd that Item 3.F (line 161) categorically forbade flag 30 lots, with the exception of if and when a variance was indicated for a specific situation. 31 Mr. Lloyd advised that, as a result of a previous Lot Split Study Task Force undertaking, 32 staff found conflicting situations after enactment of the current subdivision ordinance. 33 While the Task Force wanted to prohibit flag lots, the majority of the task force 34 members indicated if someone came forward to pursue a flag lot, it could be considered if 35 subjected to a variance process, and based upon square footage, and lot width and 36 depth. 37 Member Bull stated his issue in keeping city code succinct, and in his interpretation of the 38 initial Item F, and then the following language in lines 147 164, it caused flags to go up 39 for him. While understanding clarification, Member Bull sought to ensure the code 40 was not using vague multiple 41 regular shapes, including circles and cones that would be considered undesirable. 42 Member Bull opined he found the proposed revised language too subjective (e.g. line 43 157) when talking about irregularities, and questioned who was responsible for making 44 that call; and suggested something needed to be described to help with that definition. 45 Member Bull reiterated his preference that any code revisions remove vagarities and be 46 more definable for users of the code. 47 Mr. Lloyd advised that, in general he agreed that clear and simple is preferable to 48 convoluted and vague. However, in this case, Mr. Lloyd advised that the attempt was to 49 remove a clear statement (line 142) that in reality was simply not feasible geometrically 50 speaking. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent of the revised language was not to 51 be brief, but address the actual reality of working with simple shapes, whether that meant 52 rectangles, squares, cones or pie shapes, with it being hard to characterize as 53 Page 6 of 10