Roseville Planning Commission approves parcel split at 106 Ben Ezra Avenue

ROSEVILLE — The Roseville Planning Commission on Aug. 14 approved a tentative parcel map to divide a roughly half‑acre property at 106 Ben Ezra Avenue into two separate single‑family residential lots.

The commission voted 5‑0 to adopt three required findings and approve the map, subject to 39 conditions of approval and a 10‑day appeal period. Commissioner Jensen made the motion and Vice Chair Brashears seconded it.

The proposal would retain the existing 2,000‑square‑foot house on the front parcel (Parcel A) and create Parcel B, roughly 0.3 acres, intended for future single‑family development. Kenny Shalgo, associate planner, told the commission the site is zoned R‑1 and designated low‑density residential by the general plan. Shalgo said the proposed parcel sizes — approximately 0.2 acres for Parcel A and 0.3 acres for Parcel B — conform to R‑1 development standards and provide space for required setbacks and parking.

Project plans call for recorded easements including a 10‑foot storm drain easement, a 10‑foot reciprocal drainage easement on Parcel B and a 20‑foot reciprocal access easement on the west side of Parcel A to provide access to Parcel B from Ben Ezra Avenue. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be responsible for improving the project frontage along Ben Ezra Avenue.

Josh Alva, the property owner, spoke in support of the split. "The proposal before you tonight to split our lot is a way for us to contribute positively to the community's future," Alva said. He said his family has lived in Roseville for nine years and agreed with staff recommendations.

One nearby resident, Laura Wilborn of 219 Nevada Avenue, spoke during public comment expressing concerns about parking, traffic and the character of the neighborhood. "We have no idea what it's gonna be built to look like," Wilborn said, citing nearby multiunit construction and saying current parking is already impacted.

Greg Bitter, planning manager, addressed several procedural and legal points raised during the hearing. He said the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline section 15315 (minor land divisions) and the city's CEQA implementing procedures, section 305. Bitter also explained the effect of state law, saying "a couple years ago, the governor signed into law Senate Bill 9 ... that allowed ministerial lot splits, but it also obligated all jurisdictions within the state of California in their single family zones to allow up to two residential units." He added that, while the current approval creates two lots and anticipates single‑family development, any future proposals that exceed zoning (for example, true multifamily projects) would require separate review and approvals and could face difficult findings regarding spot zoning.

Commissioners questioned staff and the applicant about parking and future development; commissioners emphasized the current action was only to create two parcels and not to approve specific building designs. Staff said building permits and planning review would follow for any construction, and that planning staff reviews building permits for consistency with setbacks and zoning standards.

The motion approved three findings of fact required for subdivision maps and imposed 39 conditions of approval. The file number for the tentative parcel map is PL25‑0346. There is a 10‑day appeal period for the decision.

The commission also heard routine consent items and was briefed by staff about upcoming meeting locations and a September City Council workshop on the city's pro‑housing designation; those items did not affect the parcel map decision.