Laserfiche WebLink
Post-Meeting3 Homework—Exercise2 Responses <br />Single-Family Residential Lot SplitSurvey <br />Regulation Type <br />I <br />i <br />i' <br />hLmc�a�c�l'-�! - <br />nn:2o�l iiii�iuE �liaLLitL <br />� �� <br />--......- - -......� �- <br />E � <br />� 1 <br />- �■ <br />�:xeate rsvo or moxe single-'�mil} <br />iesidentia] zoning districts <br />� <br />�levelog a "sliding-scale" <br />_egulation based on nei�lab-•�r^ <br />� �t sizes <br />Apri15, 200T <br />.: <br />4 <br />. . _ . �� . . ... .. <br />�umrl�. uuf •ur. r.�u��h.�u {.LLr x�! u•J��iWSr� <br />����" a�Ert�a� <br />Easy ta umderstand and apply. <br />Unde�siandabie <br />Easy (xelatively small number of open/potential lots <br />map not warzant change <br />It is easier for general public to understand and for <br />staffto aciu�iuistex <br />"Dae-size fits all" <br />Easily understandable <br />May ap�ear fair <br />"ICnown qvant€ty" for builders and purchasers <br />Simplest system; is easp to understand <br />Least restrictive of property developmenttights <br />Reflects the way the commrxiury has hiseorically <br />developed <br />The most equitable approach <br />Allows for some va�aance by not having a maximum <br />size and tl�cough the vuiance pxocess <br />Easy to understand and intcipxet <br />Cily zaung xegu3a£ion <br />AII single-fanuly properties tceated equalip <br />I• <br />.� <br />.r <br />�. <br />r <br />t <br />r <br />�* <br />Allows vaxiation in lots sizm. I <br />Likely nses nbjective standards for applzcatzon_ I <br />Protectsneighborhoods � <br />rlllows for differentregulation and affordable � <br />housing . � <br />i3nrl�sYaadal�lc ' <br />Allows �a� spe 'u£'ic diversities; seemi�a�g objecuve <br />slid fairly meehanical applicaraon <br />It is easier for general public m understand and staff ' <br />to administer <br />Respects existing neighborhood character <br />More realistic <br />Allows more housingchoices <br />May maxginally allow more npen space ptescrvation <br />Promotes heaIth diversity <br />Establishes standards and guidelines fox £utcixe • <br />devetopment �� would striae to u�xiut�in unique <br />characters (e.g. density, gtcen space, ctc.) of ccztain � <br />accas in City � <br />Pxovides Eoz a iitile variamce wbile still being easy ta i <br />understand and implerrrrxent � <br />�aszex ta understand than a sliding scale <br />Yes I <br />Clearlp defines rules as they apply to the different <br />SIZC ASSL'S <br />�. . . - <br />' Appeals to ��opulae opuuon to have neighbarhoods � <br />decide. � • <br />Avoids having to specificallp pick which W Ir to �ut <br />into diffesent zones. h <br />Does allow neighborhoodto change over h e. ,� <br />None <br />�.ogical and contea�t-bared i <br />Used in similar suburb � <br />Would help with laxge loYS � �a s of the City that a tie <br />opposed to lot splits <br />Contcxhxal, enkaaaaces �,isiiiix neighborhood <br />claacactez <br />Pzesecves more open space <br />•[.tw jarzingto adjoiningpropertp owners, thus more <br />�olitzcalJp Eeasihie <br />� Would prefer a blend of this and £ol�awing approach <br />so that iots do not becozaae tm sznall <br />■ Creates subjecpve cr3texia for establishing <br />development rest�ictions that would stxive to <br />maSintai�x unique characteristic (e.g. density, green <br />soace_ ete.) of certaixx areas in Citv <br />_ . . . �.�cr.�a � <br />��:�c Lka n� .:�x r. h-r� ,r, ���:n,,t� �,�-�' <br />and too "�-tr for some neighUoxhaods. <br />Rigid. <br />1/3 don't meetcurrent standaa�is <br />Very laxge minimum lots <br />Implicit inconsistency beimeen axeas of high/low <br />density and socio-ecoaomzc status; issue �w7 <br />evea�tually resurface in a different tvap and �il! need <br />to 6a dealt wiYh <br />Possibly docs mt xe�]ect what other 1" zit� <br />communities are doing <br />"One size..." unxealistic. <br />Discourages dive�sitp of �esidential developAa�esxt, <br />including affoxdabla housu�g <br />Inflexible, oz provides for lowes€ c ommon <br />denominatorin housing choicca. <br />�pe! pressure on oYi�ex parts of the .��:*�:_ =:•; for <br />divexsi�y <br />Seems ti,tiptomotepiecemeal, �m'4���re, fisx7r:+ssi <br />develapment, over wkuch the Citp Laa limited <br />coatrol and influence.At the same h e, City 1�q5� <br />anake �ieces fit into �e whole, which is difficuk <br />when such dev�lopznent is disjointed. <br />Gucte�t nunimums do not reflect the historical <br />develapmanC pa�tems of the community, parricuL�ly <br />in tl2e southern poztzon oE lioseville <br />Difficult (po�tzcal) to decide what goes whexe. <br />Maybe Ut viewed as condorzing "e:celusive" <br />neigh6oxhoods. <br />Would need to be "sold" <br />Added complexity <br />Possibly does not ieElect what other 1" ris2g; <br />coznnrawzitaes axe doing <br />May create "rich" versris "pooz" neighborhoods <br />May "scaze" pxopexYq owners initially <br />More zesrricYive of psopeety development tights <br />More complex stanriuds <br />May create impressionof "haves" and"lave-nois" <br />Gzeates/perpemates Ass distinctions <br />W h o decideswhich neighborhoods are worthy of <br />having.-: T}c � lots? <br />AIl except the er.istizag would ne�ativc,�y ilnpact <br />existing property rights <br />Creeces real or pesceived diffexential t�eairnent of <br />�ro�iesties and property awne�s <br />How are the zoning disuicks detezmir�ed? <br />�'nr.•�'i: i�cd io �fTfF � foc ap¢'bnl �nil {:i+: <br />{iar ar.�ilr�sc�3iii i:n nroarsE+Ul:�!ir�iiiii �ii:l iKil <br />necessaziiy even applicationCo adjoiningpropexry <br />owners. <br />Still need to decide how far e� go (500 �sG v, 750) <br />May not work tightif large lot is close to �atu»ex�o�s <br />small lots on one side but ]axge lots on other_ <br />Not �necessarily an efficientway to divide loes (early <br />]ots maybe large and latcr Iots smallec} <br />Doesn't protect eitii�x large or sr�all lats <br />Implementationdifficukactoss city <br />Short-termsolution <br />I�ieed to anricipate potential �ixob2ems with method <br />Very cumbersome, not easy for ehe general public to <br />undezstazzd and does � moze sYaff time to <br />administer <br />May result in c�nrealistic lot sizes <br />Possible promotion of idea of "z�xix�iznum" lot size <br />(as a sort o£#iooc), rather than aimingat ideal of <br />ample lots <br />More xestxactive of nronertv deve[obzxzent �: F-< <br />;#� � � � <br />