Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />City Council Study Session <br />Minutes of Monday, May 14, 2007 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />· The nature of change; with Ms. Bakeman observing that this would <br />prove to be a key challenge facing the City Council as they pro- <br />ceed with policy discussions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bakeman summarized the scope of the study, including appropri- <br />ate dimensions (width, depth and area) of single-family lots and <br />whether there should be a uniform standard throughout the commu- <br />nity or varied, depending on its proximity, and any equity issues re- <br />sulting from varying lot standards; appropriate share for single-family <br />lots and their front yard lot line characteristics; creation or revision of <br />other single-family lot standards (including, but not limited to tree <br />preservation/replacement; open space preservation; designation of <br />steep slopes as unbuildable, etc.); public streets versus private streets; <br />lot sizes in conjunction with housing densities; impacts on afforda- <br />bility and diversity of housing stock; and relationship of lot standards <br />or dimensions with the Metropolitan Council's System Statement for <br />the City of Roseville or the Imagine Roseville 2025 community vi- <br />sioning goals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bakeman summarized existing policies and codes in place to pre- <br />serve existing neighborhoods (i.e., refusal to spot zone; no commer- <br />cial next to residential; and encouraging reinvestment in current hous- <br />ing stock). <br /> <br />Mr. Grefenberg provided an analysis of maps and report specifics re- <br />garding first-ring suburbs and comparisons with the City of Roseville. <br />Mr. Grefenberg personally noted the passionate convictions spoke by <br />participating residents attending meetings and serving on the CAG; <br />balanced representation of varying opinions on the CAG, serving to <br />help discussions and the process; and noted that, from very disparate <br />perspectives, the CAG ended up with consensus recommendations <br />with the exception of one item. <br /> <br />Mr. Grefenberg addressed eight of the thirteen comparison metropoli- <br />tan cities having a second residential zoning category that allowed <br />larger lot sizes, but noted their square footage ranges, leading the <br />CAG to recognize that one size didn't fit all. Mr. Grefenberg further <br />noted the number of non-conforming lots currently existing in the City <br />(estimated at 24%); and the CAG's recommendation that more than <br />