2007_0416_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Survey Results All Surveys Number of Survey Sent: 197 Number of Surveys Received: 64 Response ltate: 32% Single-FamilyResidential Lot Split Study � Y��i �� L Did you live at your existing home when the singie-family residential lat(s} at that was (were) subdivided? 91% Yes 9% No (Did not need to complete the remainder of the survey.) 2. Were you initially supportive, in opposition to, or indifferent to the subdivision of this lot? •a•1'•.�� Supportive 33%_Oppased 22% indifferent Whv? ' It devalues the community. It makes the lots look like inner-city lots. ' Good use of land. ' Why demolish an acceptable home? Incredible waste. Plus, the loss of 25+ (?} trees was also incxedibly wasteful. ' The placement of the new home (facing S. to Cty B but addresses as Fulham) is odd and poorly thought out for the sake of neighborhood dynamic and feel. ' The lot had adequate size to subdivide. ' The large lots make this a green and attractive neighbarhood. � No one contacted us on this split. ' Because it is legal to do it. Respect people's property rights. ' Somewhat opposed (resistant to change). Somewhat indifferent (it is their land). • Personally, I would not want to live in eirher house. I understand it works for them because they're related. But I wouldn't buy a house like that. What will happen if either family wants to move? ' If those closest did not care I should ��ot be opposed. ' The average lot in Roseville is already mi�ima� sue. Although this was a double lot (izx length), the house was constructed very near my property I�,xae_ Subdivide�by width � length if yon must. ' Generally indifferent but I do not know why sometivn� has to be built on every square foot of land - open space is sri11 desirable. ' Didn't know that much about it. ' We weren't asked about it. ' Because we know the family. � Concern about resale ability of flag lot. ' Good neighbor. ■ Let people do their thing. Putting your retirement home in your backyard is l�ind of weird. • We were not infarmed of the split. • I felt that we didn't need that many homes on approximately 2 1/2 -3 acres. I felt that 2-3 homes would have been ok. ■ 111-informed, suspected more of a townha�nrze complex type deal, not single-family homes on cul-de-sac. ■ Periodically homes are built or remodeled on Parker Avenue. ■ I met with the neighbor and his plans were upscale. Could only have a positive/eff�ctive outcome. • Because I live the other side of Shryer Ave. • Too many large homes bu�t on a small tract of land. • Briuging young families to the neighborhood is good. Continuing to improve the properties in Roseville �ill contribute to growth and development for r;� city. • Potential impacts on wildlife and runoff (starmwater and spring snow melt). • A very lovely wooded area was totally destroyed. Estate taxes ��7f go up as they alrca�y have. � Primary reason was inadequate plan for handling dra�na�e/ri.in-o�f due to raised grade of new development. February 24,2007 Draft � a£ S