2016-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 5 6. Public Hearings 200 a. PROJECT FILE 0001, Amendment 4 201 Request by the City of Roseville to clarify regulations in City Code, Title 11 202 (Subdivisions) pertaining to configuration of boundaries for new single-family lots 203 and to clarify applicability of specified lot size standards. 204 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0001 at 7:04 p.m. 205 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report dated May 206 4, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes and specific to minimum residential lot sizes 207 (Section 1103.06.A and B) and side lot lines (Section 1103.06.F). Mr. Lloyd presented 208 some graphical depictions of hypothetical subdivisions, attached hereto and made a 209 part hereof, to illustrate how the existing requirements can produce lot shapes that might 210 not be intended by the code even though the subdivision might conform to the 211 requirements. 212 Mr. Lloyd noted that some Subdivision Code language remained from when Ordinance 213 216 was originally adopted in April of 1956 and compared with today’s reality were no 214 long applicable in a nearly-developed first-ring suburb such as Roseville. 215 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd provided verbal and illustrative examples of 216 flag lots in Roseville and other metropolitan suburbs that were not within the confines of 217 the code’s intention. 218 For clarification purposes, Chair Boguszewski noted that the changes outlined and 219 recommended by staff in the report, lines 142 – 164 were mostly directive with 220 subsections guiding and defining the basic rationale for the language revisions. Chair 221 Boguszewski noted these provided some flexibility in interpreting general guidelines 222 when considering those lots considered suitable and appropriate, while giving some 223 semblance of a parallel or perpendicular nature. 224 Mr. Lloyd agreed that was a good characterization, with the intent of the code to provide 225 for regular and predictable lots, but the ability for review on a case by case basis. 226 Chair Boguszewski opined that, with agreement from his colleagues, this language could 227 be incorporated with the other recommended language revisions, keyed back to the 228 underlying zoning district, and all within one motion; as confirmed by Mr. Lloyd. 229 Member Daire clarified with Mr. Lloyd that Item 3.F (line 161) categorically forbade flag 230 lots, with the exception of if and when a variance was indicated for a specific situation. 231 Mr. Lloyd advised that, as a result of a previous Lot Split Study Task Force undertaking, 232 staff found conflicting situations after enactment of the current subdivision ordinance. 233 While the Task Force hadn’t wanted to prohibit flag lots, the majority of the task force 234 members indicated if someone came forward to pursue a flag lot, it could be considered if 235 subjected to a variance process, and based upon square footage, and lot width and 236 depth. 237 Member Bull stated his issue in keeping city code succinct, and in his interpretation of the 238 initial Item F, and then the following language in lines 147 – 164, it caused flags to go up 239 for him. While understanding staff’s clarification, Member Bull sought to ensure the code 240 was not using vague terms, such as “geometric” that could be defined with multiple 241 regular shapes, including circles and cones that would be considered undesirable. 242 Member Bull opined he found the proposed revised language too subjective (e.g. line 243 157) when talking about irregularities, and questioned who was responsible for making 244 that call; and suggested something needed to be described to help with that definition. 245 Member Bull reiterated his preference that any code revisions remove vagarities and be 246 more definable for users of the code. 247 Mr. Lloyd advised that, in general he agreed that clear and simple is preferable to 248 convoluted and vague. However, in this case, Mr. Lloyd advised that the attempt was to 249 remove a clear statement (line 142) that in reality was simply not feasible geometrically 250