CC_Minutes_2007_0611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: From: Date: Re: Roseville City Council Members Al Sands June 11, 2007 Lot Splits Roseville was developed primarily after World War II. We have had good sized residential lot requirements that have enhanced the desirability of Roseville as a great place to live. The issue that came up in January of this year, after some bad experiences, was whether or not there are some neighborhoods within Roseville with larger than average lot sizes that should be preserved as the neighborhoods they are, or whether developers should be allowed to change them into smaller lots that would drastically change the nature ofthat neighborhood. "Flag Lots" are also a concern. The CAG (citizens advisory group) decided not to preserve and protect those neighborhoods (Item A), and in fact went beyond that issue to advocate for smaller lot sizes than we now require. This group was primarily the current members ofthe city's planning commission, who work closely with staff and seem to have a bias toward development in order to grow the tax base. I disagree. As one of the petitioners to protect the existing large lot neighborhoods among us, I propose the following: I. The City Council adopt the CAG recommendation that the preamble of the Zoning Code be amended to include ....."for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the character, stability, and vitality or residential neighborhoods.. ..." (Recommendation C6). 2. CAG recommendations DI, relating to environmentally development practices, and D2, relating to tree preservation and replacement, be adopted, so that we maintain our current number of trees. Most developments destroy many trees. 3. The city reject adopting smaller single family residential lots as contrary to the goal stated in I above( Item CI). (If adopted, require it be a PUD overlay). 4. The city reject the CAG's recommendation to abandon our large lot neighborhoods to development into standard neighborhoods, and adopt the Alternative Recommendations that would protect existing neighborhoods and require any subdivided lot to be within parameters of its contiguous neighbors (items 3 and 4 of the Citizen-based alternative recommendations). Adopting the goals stated in I and 2 above, and implementing them by adopting the Citizens Alternative recommendations would make the implementation fit the proposed goals like a glove The CAG's subdivision and zoning code implementation recommendations conflict with their own stated goals, and need to be rejected. Or recommendation C6 should be rejected as the goal. Let's back offthis intense desire by the planning commission to always grow the tax base. There are other, more important considerations.