CC_Minutes_2007_0611 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

in Map 3, over 49% of the single-family lots in Roseville are actually smaller than 11,000 sf. It is also difficult to believe a reasonable or appropriate comparison exists between Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, Newport, and Roseville. In addition, as pointed out previously in this document, other communities may have smaller minimums than Roseville, but Roseville has a smaller minimum (7,700 sf) represented by nearly 50% of the existing homes. This 7,700 sf, a more accurate reflection of our lot size, would place us just below Maplewood on the chart, and the only member of the first nine communities on the chart providing no protection for larger lot sizes. General citizen input on this important topic was extremely limited. Estimates by some members of the CAG set the figure at less than 40 with the bulk of those participating attending the open house. Although this study spanned two issues of the Roseville Wrap, there was no mention of the CAG or the Lot Split Study. As for flyers, unless they were mailed out, I believe very few were circulated. As for advertising in the newspaper, it was done after the open house, not before. As for the open-house, many items were set up asking for input regarding what layout individuals preferred for residential areas. Overwhelmingly, as evidenced by the charts included in the report, citizens participating favored winding streets and irregular lots. That request for public input was converted into a recommendation to "require that lot lines are perpendicular to the front property line unless a variance is obtained"-an exact reversal of the sentiment expressed by the public attending the open house. Furthermore, there was little attention drawn to the use of private roads---as shown on the maps presented at the open house. Some of us failed to even notice that some of the streets on the examples were "private." In my opinion, as one who attended the open house, to assert that citizens supported "private streets" is unfounded. As for the survey results included, the important information is that only slightly more than 30% or residents responded. In an attempt to summarize four very different projects, the report found that of 44% of citizens who were supportive of a project at the outset and 45% later reported negative neighborhood impacts. The common criticism was increased density, loss of green space, increased traffic, and homes "that don't seem to fit with the neighborhood." It is interesting that during the Imagine 2025 project protection of green space, protection of the environment and reduction of traffic were crucial issues. In summary, given the intent of the Alternative Recommendations and the existing Zoning Code, it would appear that a reasonable approach rnight be as follows. Roseville should maintain its existing zoning code and arrive at a simple averaging or sliding scale approach to lot splits where all homeowners would be treated fairly and the city could increase its density slowly while maintaining its neighborhood character. Roseville should undertake a separate and substantial review to address the issues of lot recombinations and the regulations concerning approvals of subdivisions and PUDs. 4