2006_0227_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.9 In recent months the City Council has raised concerns over infill d�velopment (the act of legally dividing a larger lot/parcel into two or more legal conforming lots/parcels) and particularly whether a prnposed "lot split" fits into the character of a"neighborhaod" as well as concerns over traff'ic, storm water managerr�ent and type of hornes. 4.10 The existing review/approval process does r�ot eontain provisians for determining whether a new subdivision or minar subdivision fits into the character of a given lacation, but rather whet�er it meets the Camprehensive Plan goals & policies, and whet�er it mee�s the rr�inimum zoning 5tandards for single iamily residential develapment. 4.1 I In the case of the Zheng propasal the City Planner has reviewed tl�e broader area (Co�nty Road B to Inters�ate 35W and Trunk Highway 280 to Cleveland Avenue) to determin� whetl�er o�her lot divisions have occurred. On Fulham Street alane, t�eze have been 14 new lots/parcels createc� fram their original lats/parcels. �'urther, this unique area has axperieneed th� creation of 70 new single family residential lots or parcels from fnrmer larger parentloriginal lots or parcels, of which the rnajority of these diviszons occurred after the cu�ent policies and requirements were established by the City (1960's and 1970's). Although these lots or parcels are larger than average, it should be noted that tl�e ownersldevelopers of these lots or parcels made a conscience decision to design and subdivide their land to a size that was larger than the minimum policy or standard. 4.12 Also of nate is Stanecrest — a 22 lot/unit town home development directly west that redeveloped three large pareeIs. The FUD was ap�roved by the City Council in Septeml�er 2002. 4.13 Should the request be approved l�y the City Council, the staff, prior ta the applicant's recording with the Ramsey County Recorder, must review a certi�cate of suzvey (con�apleted) at�d a auzt clair� deed for compliance with the Council's approval. 5.� STAFF FIND�NGS & CONDITIONS: 5.1 In review of the Roseville City Code, t�e City Planner has concladed that the MINOR SUEDIVISI4N (as provided by the applicant) proposed under Section 1104.04E, meets requirements of Section i004.U16 (Residential Dimensiona� Requirements}, Section ll03A6A1 and Section 11.0406F of the Roseville City Code and the prapnsed �wo lot division meets the residentiai palicies of Chaptear � Land Use of the Roseville Ca�nprehensive Plan and Map designation, affordi�g up to 4 units per acre. Specifically, both parcels have a rriinimum widtl� of 85 feet, a depth of 110 %et and a minimurn of 11,000 sq. ft. and tke proposal is just under 3 u�aits per acre. 5.2 The City policy is to accept park land or cash in lieu of land dedication for the creation of new lots. Because no park is adjacent or planned near these parcels, it is assumed that the creation o�'the new parcel will req�iare a fee in lieu af land dedication amaunting to $1,OQp payable to the City of Roseville, upon issuanc� of a building permit. PF3601_RCA_022706.doc Page 3 of 4