pf07-016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-- Singl�amily Residential Lot Split Study If ves, what? ■ Noise, trees being cut down, less deer. ■ Even scrubby understory has value in terms of birds, bugs, critters, etc. Too bad one lot could not have been maintained as "wild". I also eYpect run-off issues with rain snow to worsen with more homes...more unpervious surfaces are BAD. r�lso, I feel bad for the people right nest door. I'd feel screwed if I were them. More speeders too! ■ Didn't realize new homes would be so tall. Lot of dust and dirt, but I realize this is part of construction. (They did try to water and clean up Parker whenever they could.) ■ Again, really too soon for full evaluation. Impacts on runoff/flooding to neighboring properties will not be known till construction/landscaping is complete and spring runoff/summer rains occur. Impacts to wildlife, however, were evident as soon as land clearing began. Wildlife (deer, etc.) are now barred from accessing wedands/open spaces from the west. Width passages/corridors blocked, deer are no�v being seen on streets and in yards more. Roseville should explore wildlife corridors and corridor set-aside width splits to insure a 15' to 20' corridor along the south edge of the split would have helped. ■ Short-term=noisy. Long-term=Loss of natural habitat to wildlife; qualiry of estended neighborhood suffered with loss of mature trees & buffer zone; low home-per-acre density. ■ t1ll the trees, bushes were pulled out, grass plowed under on the 3 3/4 acres of land. Not environmentally� good - animals, birds were displaced. Shame on Mayor Clausing and all the council members who voted for this development. ■ Reduction of trees, bird life, some drainage issues are apparent - but too early to tell. ■ Loss of privacy. Increased noise (traffic & construction). ■ Ugly! 5. If you were in the market to buy a house today, would you buy one in your neighborhood? 61% Yes 28% No 8% Yes and No Whv? ■ ��11 the old smaller homes are being torn down and ugly big homes replacing them. I liked the small town older neighborhood feeling when I moved in. Now it's gone! ■ Damn right I would! Roseville, especially this little nook, is a great place. Even in a soft market, people snatch up homes here quickly. Please, if only we could get a sidewalk and traffic calming techniques on Northbound Lex, from Parker to B!! Please, please! ■ It's a great neighborhood - except we didn't appreciate the big houses (4) that were built on our dead end. ■ Nice neighborhood with great locations. However, I�vould not purchase a home within visual proYimity of this subdivision ■ Roseville is convenient, established, good schools, good public services (fire, law, etc.), well thought out. • Convenient location, quiet. ■ But not one of the 952 to 978 homes. We love our long lot with woods and animal life at 928. I would buy in this location if one had such a wonderful lot size. ■ Great location - central for Mpls. and St. Paul; younger families are moving here = more kids to grow-up and play together. ■ Too expensive. ■ Financially I had (and still have) the ability to live in any community I choose. In 1996 I chose to purchase my 1-acre lot because of LOCr1TION. It was QUIET, on a semi-private road, and all of the surrounding neighbors appreciated (and paid for) the lu�ury of large, quiet lots. Roseville has few areas like the Chats�vorth/Shryer area. It has been forever damaged and iny allegiance to this area had been damaged. I attended all cin� council meetings to have a voice and address this issue and signed petitions, yet the city council chair railroaded the issue. ■ The developer may try to entice more homeo�vners to sell, to build more de�•elopments on the street. 10 McI�lansions built on 3 3/4 acres - isn't this a bit much? ■ House (lot to build) was chosen for convenience of location and size for gardening. Might not buy in Roseville if available lot sizes become too small for large gardens. ■ Not in the specific location we are at. It ruined our property. ■ Maybe. 3j22j?U07 Draft 2 of 2