pf_03439 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ff. ~C{-~q Welsch, Dennis From: Sent: To: Subject: Munson, Don Tuesday, April 08, 20034:44 PM Welsch, Dennis Accessory Housing Unit Ordinance Dennis: I've reviewed the proposed ordinance and find it problematic on numerous fronts. 1. This ordinance will change the character of Roseville neighborhoods. Property owners will see this as an opportunity to add rental income structures. These will not be designed to fit into the neighborhood despite what the ordinance reads, they will look like cheap add-ons. They will add asphalt parking to an extent that is out of character in a residential district. Residents (particularly older residents) now complain that the city is loosing it's long standing appeal as a city to raise a family because of new and devaluing influences - the smaller homes turning into rentals, businesses operating out of homes and garages, properties not being maintained (particularly rental property), older inoperable cars as well as the increased number of cars seen spilling onto the grass, etc. This ordinance will generate numerous complaints of violations of the zoning ordinance which the city currently does not have the ability to enforce. There will be six college students living over a garage with 5-7 cars perked all over and on the grass and the city has no enforcement powers to stop it. The city will become less family and more transient orientated. 2. This ordinance will give false expectations to residents in that they will assume they can do certain conversions that will be allowed but actually be cost prohibitive due to building codes. Converting a basement into a 'separate dwelling unit' will require the construction of a one-hour separation, easy on new construction but cost prohibitive on a 30 year old home built under diferent codes. Existing water lines will likely need to be enlarged as well as sewer, very expensive. People will get council approval and then be frustrated when they find out they can't just add a new entry, slap up a few walls and call it that. That's what occurred in Mpls and St. Paul and we don't want to end up with the same problems in Roseville. Residents will also think they can add a second story to their existing detached garage; these foundations will not alow a second story, both sewer and water lines will likely have to come from the street versus the principal structure (resulting in patches and settlement in new streets), new electrical services will have to be installed instead of using existing underground wires that run to a garage from the home. Also we'll end up with accessory structures taller than principal structures and out of character for peaceful backyard areas. 3.Some specific issues; _ This ordinance specifies a 'dwelling unit' which the building code closely regulates versus just enting a room which is much less regulated. ~AiS~3C~~ection 3- This should specify that a building permit is required as well as compliance with all applicable codes. (~::.9f","0.section 3 C-It should specify that there are minimum sizes in the building code to meet for 'dlfe1t' uses. c'3wK_"~QB9w~~4mlly*denY'fa>~boJ;...,.the.:J;.~t,~"oo'~IW/.befllttS'e<s'0ftletJneelse.did.it.lirst? *~tion 3- It should specify the liklyhood of new sewer and water service. . on 3- The possibility of an additional SAC charge should be mentioned. ction 3- Not enough parking is specified, also a maximum of asphalt should be specified as some will asphalt half of their front yard, which will generate complaints. -Section 4- This allows an 800 square foot second home, this is not a mother-in-law structure, it's 1