My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_1012_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_1012_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2022 2:09:06 PM
Creation date
1/10/2022 2:08:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
10/12/2020
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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
RCA Attachment A <br />121 Traffic volumes on major thoroughfares will be greater than traffic volumes on arterial or <br />122 collector streets, which will be greater than traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. If the <br />123 impacts of streets on through lots relates to the intensity of traffic on those streets, regulations of <br />124 through lots could recognize this context. <br />125 Similarly, the impacts of a private street, serving many homes, at the rear of a through lot will be <br />126 greater than a private street (or a shared driveway) serving few homes. <br />127 Through lots created withina plat could be regulated differently than through lots that are created <br />128 from pre-existing lots adjacenttoa plat. <br />129 o Through lots created within a plat could have additional depth and area beyond the minimum <br />130 standards to allow for enhanced screening along one of the frontages without consuming an <br />131 undue amount of the minimum required lot depth and area. <br />132 o The location of a new street creating through lots from pre-existing lots adjacent to a plat <br />133 could be regulated relative to some characteristic of the pre-existing lots. <br />134 The new street could be required to be located at least 15 –20 feet (using the examples <br />135 from other municipalities’ regulations) from the rear boundary of the pre-existing lots so <br />136 that enhanced screening can be installed. <br />137 The new street could be required to be located a distance from the front boundaries of the <br />138 pre-existing lots equal to (or greater than) twice the minimum required depth of the pre- <br />139 existing lots. (E.g., the minimum required depth of a standard, interior, non-shoreland lot <br />140 is 110 feet, and a new street could be required to be at least 220 feet from the front <br />141 boundary of the adjacent lot. This would ensure that the resulting through lots could be <br />142 subdivided in the future, as has frequently happened with through lots in the past.) <br />143 Requiring additional depth and area to through lots would necessarily increase the price of the <br />144 lots, which could be in conflict with the City’s goals related to improving affordability. <br />145 Draft Amendment <br />146 After considering the above concepts, Planning Division staff forwarded a draft ordinance (included <br />147 with this RCA as Attachment D) amending the zoning and subdivision code language regulating through <br />148 lots to the Planning Commission for consideration. Regarding the exceptions identified in the draft <br />149 ordinance, Council should be advised all Major Plats plats are reviewed by the Planning Commission <br />150 and City Council, and through that review the exceptions could be considered and either be accepted or <br />151 rejected based upon their reasonableness.Efforts to try andexplicity state when exceptions would be <br />152 allowedmay not be practical because it is difficult to foresee every characteristic that either would make <br />153 the through lot acceptable or not. <br />154 Public Comment <br />155 The duly noticed public hearing for the proposed zoning and subdivision code amendments was held by <br />156 the Planning Commission on September 2, 2020. Draft minutes of the public hearing are included as <br />157 Attachment E. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to <br />158 recommend approval of the proposed amendments, and the Commissioners advised the City Council to <br />159 carefully consider the question of “how close is too close” as it evaluates the proposed amendments. <br />160 Further Consideration <br />161 As noted earlier in this RCA, Planning Division staff processed an amendment as expeditiously as <br />162 possible following the City Council’s direction and presented it at the first available Planning <br />163 Commissionmeeting.Because the initial issue prompting the desire for additional regulation was the <br />PROJ0042_Amdt1_ThroughLots_RCA_20200928 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Page 4 of 9 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.