2007_0514_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Post-Meeting 3 Homework—E�cercise 2 Responses Sin�le-Family F?esidential Lot Split Survey Regulation Type Pro's Con's Promotes uniform application. City not condoning One size may not be best for a1L (maybe too small "exclusive" neighborhoods. and too lazge for some neighborhoods. Easy to understand and apply. Rigid. Understandable 1/3 don't meet current standazds Easy (relatively small number of open/potential lots Very lazge minimum lots may not wazrant change Implicit inconsistency between azeas of high/low It is easier for general public to understand and for density and socio-economic status; issue will staff to administer eventually resurface in a different way and will need "One-size fits all" to be dealt with Easily understandable Possibly does not reflect what other 1�` ring; May appeaz fair communities aze doing "I�nown quantity" for builders and purchasers "One size..." unrealistic. Simplest system; is easy to understand Discourages diversity of residential development Maintain one single-family Least restrictive of property development rights including affordable housing residential zoning district Reflects the way the community has historically Infle�ble, or provides for lowest common developed denominator in housing choices. The most equitable approach Puts pressure on other parts of the community for Allows for some variance by not having a ma�mum diversity size and through the variance process Seems to promote piecemeal, first-come, first-served Easy to understand and interpret development over which the City has limited City zoning regulation control and influence. At the same time, City must All single-family properties treated equally make pieces fit into the whole, which is difficult when such developmentis disjointed. Current minimums do not reflect the historical development pattems of the community, particulazly in the southem portion of Roseville Allows variation in lots sizes. Difficult (political� to decide what goes where. Likely uses objective standazds for application. Maybe be viewed as condoning "exclusive" Protects neighborhoods neighborhoods. Allows for different regulation and affordable Would need to be "sold" housing Added comple�ty Understandable Possibly does not reflect what other 1�` ring; Allows for specific diversities; seemingly objective communities aze doing and fairly mechanical application May create "rich" versus "poo�" neighborhoods It is easier for general public to understand and staff May "scare" property owners initially to administer More restrictive of property development rights Respects e�sting neighborhood chazacter More complex standazds More realistic May create impression of "haves" and "have-nots" Create two or more single-family �lows more housing choices Creates/peipetuates class distinctions residential zoning districts May mazginally allow more open space preservatron Who decides which neighborhoods aze worthy of Promotes health diversity having lazger lots? Establishes standazds and guidelines for future All except the e�sting would negatively impact development that would strive to maintain unique e�sting property rights chazacters (e.g. density, green space, etc.� of certain Creates real or perceived differential treatrnent of azeas in City properties and property owners Provides for a little variance while still being easy to How aze the zoning districts determined? understand and implement Easier to understand than a sliding scale Yes Clearly defines rules as they apply to the different size classes Appeals to populaz opinion to have neighborhoods Complicated to apply (both for applicant and City� decide. Size very dependent on order of subdivision and not Avoids having to specifically pick which lots to put necessarily even application to adjoining property into different zones. owners. Does allow neighborhood to change over time. Still need to decide how far to go (500 feet v. 750� None May not work right if lazge lot is close to numerous Logical and context-based small lots on one side but lazge lots on other. Used in similar suburb Not necessarily an efficient way to divide lots (eazly Would help with lazge lots areas of the City that aze lots maybe lazge and later lots smaller� Develop a"sliding-scale" opposed to lot splits Doesn't protect either lazge or small lots regulation based on neighboring Contextual, enhances e�sting neighborhood Implementation difficult across city lot sizes chazacter Short-term solution Preserves more open space Need to anticipate potential problems with method Less jazang to adjoining property owners, thus more Very cumbersome, not easy for the general public to politically feasible understand and does cause more staff time to Would prefer a blend of this and following approach administer so that lots do not become too small May result in unrealistic lot sizes Creates subjective criteria for establishing Possible promotion of idea of "minimum" lot size development restrictions that would strive to (as a sort of floor�, rather than aiming at ideal of maintain unique chazacteristic (e.g. density, green ample lots space, etc.� of certain azeas in City More restrictive of ro er develo ment ri hts Apri15, 2007 Page 1 of 2