2007_0514_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 5 Meeting Summary (Revised) Roseville Single-Family Residential Lot Split Study MEETING ATTENDEES Advisory Grou� Members Mary Bakeman Dan Boerigter Jim Doherty Gary Grefenberg Jeanne Kelsey Darrel LeBarron Barbara Martinson Vivian Ramalingam Other Glenn Cook Group/City Staff Aimee Gourlay Jamie Radel John Stark DISCUSSION OF HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT During the week between the March 28 and Apri14 meetings, staff prepared an exercise for the Advisory Group to complete that included members ranking desired outcomes of any new single- family lot split recommendations and developing pro's and con's of various regulatory methods. Jamie Radel presented a summary of the results of the exercises at the meeting. Advisory Group members gave high ranks to criteria involving a"fair" application process, ease of understanding, standards by which the City Council can make decisions, and unambiguous outcomes as well as neighborhood character; they gave the lowest rankings to criteria regarding a non-mechanical application process and Council flexibility. Minimizing environmental impacts and allowing for diverse lot sizing ranked as important as well. The discussion around the second exercise—pro's and con's of various regulatory methods— generated significant discussion during the meeting. Standard Zonin�(one or more district� The Advisory Group generally supported maintaining one zoning district or creating two or more. They felt that this type of regulation was easier to understand. One zoning district or more than one each have a set of strengths and weaknesses. Some committee members felt that one zoning district would be easy to understand and administer, but ultimately is too inflexible and does not reflect the "actual" development in Roseville. Two or more zoning districts would promote greater housing choice/diversity, but could strain social structures by creating areas of "have" and "have nots." Sliding-Scale Regulation: The sliding-scale regulation received the least amount of support from Advisory Group members. Several members commented that they liked the contextuality this type of regulation affords. However, general sentiment was that it would be a difficult process to understand and administer and would create an ever-changing set of standards. The group agreed that this type of regulation could be eliminated from future discussion. Hvbrid Regulation: Hybrid regulation combines standard zoning with the sliding scale regulation. The group did not discuss this fully, but felt that it warranted further discussion. April S Meeting Summary Page 9 of 3