My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2007 8:25:06 AM
Creation date
6/21/2007 11:30:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/11/2007
Meeting Type
Continued
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />in Map 3, over 49% of the single-family lots in Roseville are actually smaller than 11,000 <br />sf. It is also difficult to believe a reasonable or appropriate comparison exists between <br />Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, Newport, and Roseville. In addition, as pointed out <br />previously in this document, other communities may have smaller minimums than <br />Roseville, but Roseville has a smaller minimum (7,700 sf) represented by nearly 50% of <br />the existing homes. This 7,700 sf, a more accurate reflection of our lot size, would place <br />us just below Maplewood on the chart, and the only member of the first nine <br />communities on the chart providing no protection for larger lot sizes. <br /> <br />General citizen input on this important topic was extremely limited. Estimates by some <br />members of the CAG set the figure at less than 40 with the bulk of those participating <br />attending the open house. Although this study spanned two issues of the Roseville Wrap, <br />there was no mention of the CAG or the Lot Split Study. As for flyers, unless they were <br />mailed out, I believe very few were circulated. As for advertising in the newspaper, it <br />was done after the open house, not before. As for the open-house, many items were set <br />up asking for input regarding what layout individuals preferred for residential areas. <br />Overwhelmingly, as evidenced by the charts included in the report, citizens participating <br />favored winding streets and irregular lots. That request for public input was converted <br />into a recommendation to "require that lot lines are perpendicular to the front property <br />line unless a variance is obtained"-an exact reversal of the sentiment expressed by the <br />public attending the open house. Furthermore, there was little attention drawn to the use <br />of private roads---as shown on the maps presented at the open house. Some of us failed <br />to even notice that some of the streets on the examples were "private." In my opinion, as <br />one who attended the open house, to assert that citizens supported "private streets" is <br />unfounded. <br /> <br />As for the survey results included, the important information is that only slightly more <br />than 30% or residents responded. In an attempt to summarize four very different <br />projects, the report found that of 44% of citizens who were supportive of a project at the <br />outset and 45% later reported negative neighborhood impacts. The common criticism <br />was increased density, loss of green space, increased traffic, and homes "that don't seem <br />to fit with the neighborhood." It is interesting that during the Imagine 2025 project <br />protection of green space, protection of the environment and reduction of traffic were <br />crucial issues. <br /> <br />In summary, given the intent of the Alternative Recommendations and the existing <br />Zoning Code, it would appear that a reasonable approach rnight be as follows. <br /> <br />Roseville should maintain its existing zoning code and arrive at a simple <br />averaging or sliding scale approach to lot splits where all homeowners would be <br />treated fairly and the city could increase its density slowly while maintaining its <br />neighborhood character. <br /> <br />Roseville should undertake a separate and substantial review to address the issues <br />of lot recombinations and the regulations concerning approvals of subdivisions <br />and PUDs. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.