All posts in the topic lot subdivision issues - moratorium (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Ken Yokanovich at 2007 Jan 17 19:27 UTC
Now that the Roseville city council has passed a 3-month moratorium to allow
time to study issues and possible solutions around the subdivision of
residential lots in Roseville, do people have some thoughts about what issues
should be studied, and possible ways to address the issues?
Here are some starters:
How do we come up with a standard for the "right" density for an area? Or the
right lot size? Or how close a home can come to the property lines, etc.?
(What should the standards be?)
Should the subdivision ordinance language be cleared up to prevent unusual lot
shapes that are done to meet the letter of the law, but perhaps not necessarily
the spirit?
How do we address the very important issue of individual property owner rights
versus neighbor concerns?
Is there a one size fits all solution, or should property owners have a
voluntary process to apply special standards to their properties?
A final thought: While I would welcome feedback as to whether or not the
moratorium was a good idea in the first place, since it has been passed I hope
the responses to this post will focus on the issues to be studied. Perhaps
those with opinions on the merits of the moratorium could start a separate
topic on that, too.
> Should the subdivision ordinance language
> be cleared up to prevent unusual lot shapes that
> are done to meet the letter of the law, but perhaps not
> necessarily the spirit?
Can anyone provide links to articles or background information on this issue?
I think it would be really helpful to hear some stories that put this into
context? What kind of interesting lots shapes are being formed?
How big a problem is this?
Thanks,
Tim Erickson
Temporary Forum Manager
Roseville Issues Forum
Only knowing enough to admit that I really don't know enough to provide any
educated answers to your questions.
How about basing density on a ratio of developed to undeveloped within a
property boundary. Where any surface covered in an improved surface or
structure counts toward development and grass or landscape counts toward
undeveloped? Not sure what that ratio should be, but I would imagine it
would vary depending upon residential zoning classification.
I would think establishing a minimum setback from property line for
development should be just that, a minimum setback from property boundary.
Seems to me that if lanquage were added to include building to building
distance it would benefit the first person to build something and limit the
second person.
Strikes me that spirit of the law is better than technical letter of the
law. But, there is a whole industry dedicated in arguing one side or the
other... they're call lawyers. Seems to me, either way you go, it'd be
tough for anybody to interpret the laws without some sort of legal advice
and that's too bad.