2007_0514_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Single-Family Residential Lot Split Study Report May 14, 2007 Community-Wide Code Uniformity and Lot Dimensions, Size, and Shape One key issue that the CAG grappled with in its analysis was that of lot standard uniformity versus neighborhood context and relational lot standards. The CAG examined two primary methods for regulating minimum lot standards within single-family residential zoning districts-1) neighborhood context or the "sliding-scale" regulation and 2) "prescriptive" subdivision and zoning regulation. In addition, they discussed creating a new "hybrid" regulation that combined elements of both methods. Neighborhood Context or "Sliding-Scale" Regulation: Both the Cities of Edina and Bloomington have implemented a neighborhood-context type of subdivision ordinance, and the interim ordinance specifically requested that the CAG investigate this type of regulation for Roseville. The basic premise of this type of ordinance is that the size and shape of a new lot is determined by the area and width of the lots within a specified "neighborhood" area. In Edina, for example, the size of a new lot is determined by the median area, median lot frontage, and median depth of the single- family residential lots within 500 feet of the boundary of the subject property. The CAG spent significant time discussing the neighborhood context or "sliding scale" approach to single-family residential subdivisions. Members requested that staff apply the regulations set forward in the Edina-style ordinance to Roseville. In a preliminary analysis, staff determined the mean and median lot size, front width, and depth of properties within 500 feet of the subject properties, which included 2201 Acorn Road as well as the four subdivisions that were examined as case studies. Considering the area of the original parcel(s), all of these properties could be subdivided under this type of regulation. Using 2201 Acorn Road and the median neighboring property sizes as an example, the minimum lot sizes for newly created lots on this property would need to have an area of 34,533 square feet, a width of 126 feet, and a depth of 281 feet. After much debate on the merits of the neighborhood-context subdivision methodology, the CAG achieved a unanimous agreement that this was not the preferred regulatory tool from which to base future lot split decisions. While CAG members appreciated the neighborhood contextuality afforded through this type of regulation, general sentiment within the group was that the benefits created though this type of ordinance was outweighed by some of its negative attributes, which included decreased understandability for residents, which would result in the need for technical expertise to determine if a lot could be divided, and difficult administration. Some CAG members also felt the application sliding scale, such as Edina's, would result in unrealistically large minimum lot sizes in some neighborhoods. Another concern around this practice arose around the concept of an ever- 10