2007_0618_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. E�a has a poi�cy similar ta �at of Minrzeagolis except tha.t the av�rage loi size is based on s�rounding lots � a 500-%ot radius. The square foot area of lots cre�.ted by subdivisian z�ust be equai to a�r greater tha.� the ave�r�ge o£ lots in a 500-foot radius. It wou.ld appear from �Ia.e chart and siud� ozx Page 5 flf the ar�alysis docurn�nt �t.�iat someone is capa'�le of handiing averages anc� means. To imply �a.t a system used in rnany oth�r suburbs and ciiies h�re and a�round tha countty is "tno difficuli" for c�� residents ancl st�ff is at best inacc�.�ra�e at�d at worat embarrassing. Your ana.lysis is � carrect a�d u�der o�r recoznmenclation 4�a# splits rvould be allovv�d and would e�ve� allow t�e possi3�i�i�ty o£ gradua,ll� iz�creasu�g density over 1:irn�. Ho�ever, the d�nsity af �eighbar�oods would chang� £ar x�.pxe gradually under this recommendatidn thar� thos� outlined by tlae CACj. �t was not the r�caa�mendation tkzat no lois can be divided, o�y that th�y rnust be di�vided i� such a way as to maintain ihe character o£the z�eighborhooc�. Th� �e�a:ainder a:f t%e Recamme�datiorz� in Sec�.on B, Subdivzsion Coc�e appea�-s to �a�ve littl� bearing on the �oraio�iuzn issu� and to ha�e 1i�tle to do �vith the "Study Scope" as defzned in the Recommendations document. First, this was to be a coz�sic��ratian of "lot splits," not "lot zecambi�atioz�."(Ite�. 6) Lot recozr�bin.ation to' fornz areas to be `<zectev��op�" as �najox subciivisions or PUDs is a very di�fere�t study. Rnsevilie �as Iit�ie Qr no history on t�e use of"private roads" for subdi�zs�ons a.nd s�a�Id undertake cansid�rab�e revieur before ernbarking an sueh �. practice. (Item 4} And, if we are not �ng about iot recpmbiriation, ihe�e is r�o t�eed for p�blic aroads. �'lag 1Qts a�re g�zzezally i�a�aprop�ta�e as the placi�zg a� ��ozx�e i�n t�e bac�yard af a�otk�er ho�se not a�y affects �he prop�rty selling the flag lot, but alsa a11 the su�raundin� prapert�es.(�tems 7a and 7l�} It c�reates a�o�aer c�vevvay alo�g the side �ra�d a� a single ian�ily ha�e and a hozne �.butting t�e backy�ds of the surrounding �rnperties. T�is is a e�ncept ih�t xs out af c�.te w`�th ctu�ent practice in �ast cornm�z�ies a.nd vrauld no� be pe�zissibl� €u�der rriost o� our existing codes. It raises public safety conc�rns for police, f�e, and rnedical access ta the pro�erty. The se�irag ofPUI3 fees (I�e�n 5} is an 'rnternal iss�.e rela�ed ta Pi�ance, nat an issue for a CAG. It appears �'rom tTxe recam�ne�tdatio�s a�'�e CAG that staff asked citiz�rzs to siudy a nunaber of s€��ewk�at u�zz�eiated issues i�nder the heading of "lot sp�z�s." �n fact, if the group �ad sirnply eonsidered "Iot sp�its" a different set af findings mi�t ha�e err�ergec�.. The citi�en bas�d Altez�zative Lnt Split Po�icy Recomine�dation 3, �,0�0-foat notice for proposed �ai split hearing, was desigr�ec� ta ezzgage bz'oac�er c�tizen x�volv�rneni i� theax z�eighborhoad� az�d tlaereby zz� their ei�.y governzr��nt. As cir�ic invol�veme�t is a s�ted goal o� the City Co�.ancil in genera� a.r�d many rnernbers a£ the Ca�cil as indi�id�als, it wc�uid apgea3r that this would be a reasonable zequest. Gzven ih� �umb�r of lot splits dc�n� anz�ua�ly, suc� si�p�e �atifcation shauld nat pase an unreasonable burd�� on e�t��r sta.f'f t:�rne or r�saurc�s. When reviewin.g the CAG Recamme�dations, it shauld be �ated th�.t soz�e o�th� underlyx�g ass�nptions aaad infn;�r�atioz� in the CAG z'e}�o3ri is mis�eading. This is not to say that it is delzberate�y so, b�t perh�ps ti3:� ir�ar�nation given io the group was incornplete o� misleading. For exa.�n�ale, the znost eg�'e�iio�s o��ese is �.he table show�g Roseville's apparentl� laxge minim�m tat s�ize nf 11,ODa sf. Xet by �he f gur�s presen�ed 3