pm_990908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Nays: 0 The amended motion carried. Chair Klausing explained that the Code leaves too much latitude regarding the size and definition of structure (Seaberg's building is considered one accessory building, not two buildings). Member Mulder noted that this site is unique because of pre-existing conditions. - 10 minute break - Gc. Planning File 3133. City of Roseville request for an amendment to Sections 1101.02 (Subdivision Definitions), Section 1103.06 (Lot Standards), and Section 11 04.04E (Minor Subdivisions) of the City Code, creating a procedure for approving Flag Lots. Chair Klausing opened the public hearing and explained the proposed ordinance amendment discussed at the August Planning Commission meeting. The proposed flag lot ordinance has ten conditions. Member Cunningham asked if lots to be subdivided as flag lots could be reviewed based on taxable value. More study is necessary. Member Egli asked if the "flag" area still contained 11,000 s.f. (no). Member Cunningham asked if there was screening required by the flag lot, to protect privacy of adjoining parcels. Thomas Paschke suggested adding screening phase in condition #10. Member Olson stated she was concerned about the frontage; should it be more than 40%. The frontage should include the addition of setback adjacent to the flag lot so as to not create lots which cannot comply with setbacks on corner lots. A letter from Phyllis Christofferson (8.30.99) was read into the record. She opposed the flag lot proposal. (letter attached to minutes) There was no public comment offered. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Motion. Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Olson, to recommend that the Planning Commission affirm to the City Council the current prohibition of flag lots. Ayes: 2, Egli, Olson Nays: 3, Klausing, Wilke, Cunningham Abstain: 1, Mulder Motion failed. Member Mulder noted there are 250 parcels which could be divided; there would be strong opposition. This changes the character and conditions of adjacent parcels. New houses should have to meet all setbacks. The Planning Commission should send a clear recommendation to the City Council not permitting flag lots throughout the city. Each lot should be reviewed on its merits. Thomas Paschke noted that many lots could meet the size and frontage but there are far less than 250 lots that could actually be developed. Chair Klausing asked Thomas Paschke to describe the past history of this request. The City Council tabled a flag lot request and requested the staff to prepare options. The City Council asked for a draft ordinance and sought input. Member Cunningham noted that there is one flag lot on County Road B for which more detail would be helpful. He suggested more information from neighbors adjoining existing flag lots.