Laserfiche WebLink
y� <br />�� <br />3� <br />�l <br />3� <br />3� <br />�� <br />�S <br />3� <br />3� <br />�� <br />i� <br />� <br />�] <br />�� <br />�� <br />�9 <br />�� <br />�6 <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />.�� <br />51 <br />�� <br />S� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />5? <br />58 <br />5� <br />6� <br />�� <br />�`' <br />f�� <br />b4 <br />�� <br />To encourage community input, the Advisory group implemented a project web page, a survey to <br />residents neighboring lot split project, and help a Community Open House. <br />Lot Split Web Pa�e <br />The Advisory Group asked staff to post a web page pertaining to the study on the City's website. <br />As part of the web page, an �mail address was established for the study, which directs emai� <br />regardin� the }�r�j��.[ 1� staff, who then forwards all messages received to the Advisory Group. <br />."�iir��� a <br />In order to determine how residents living in areas where recent lot splits have occurred feel <br />about the subdivisions took place, a surv�y was sent to neighbors within 3 50 feet of four recent <br />lot split projects, including 331 and 333 Burke Avenue; County Road B and Fulham Street; 952, <br />960, and 978 Parker Avenue (now Chatsworth Court); Hamline Avenue and �akcrest Avenue. <br />One-hundred ninety-seven surveys were sent and 64 were returned, for a response rate of 32 <br />percent. Staff felt this was an excellentresponse rate as there were only approximately five days <br />for recipients to complete and return it to the City. Of the people who responded, 44 percent <br />were supportive of the projects when they were proposed, 33 percent were opposed, and 22 <br />percent were indifferent. In addition, 76 percent of respondents said they today that would still <br />purchase a home in their neighborhood. <br />Recurrent themes in the survey results included the following: <br />Concern over open space, trees, and wildlife; <br />Ability to bring new families to Roseville; <br />■ Favoring new single-family homes over new multifamily homes; and <br />Property values. <br />(The cumulative and individual survey results are attached to this memorandum in the March 22 <br />Meeting Summary.) <br />Communitv Oven House <br />On March 15, the Advisory Group hosted a Community Open House at City Hall. <br />Approximately 25 people signed in to the event; staff estimated that there were approximately 35 <br />people over the course of the evening. Information presented at the Open House, included the <br />history of residential development in Roseville, curreni code standards for single-family <br />residential development, four lot split case studies (those projects that were subjects of the <br />survey described above), and physical impacts of development. The event offered a number of <br />methods for participants to provide their input—interactive questions, a lot design activity, and a <br />comment sheet as well as conversing with Community Development and Public Works staff. <br />(Attached to the memorandum are materials that were prepared as part of the Open House.) <br />66 Progress and Next Steps <br />�`� Due to the time constraints placed on the study by the 90-day duration of the lot split <br />�#� moratorium, the Advisory Group has made significant progress in a very short time. The group <br />�a� has met weekly for the last five weeks and is beginning to formulate a set of recommendations <br />�U for the City Council. The Group anticipated that it would have a set of recommendations by <br />�� April 12 to present at a Planning Commission meeting in order to garner community input into <br />Single-Family Residential Lot Split Study (PROJ0001) Page 2 of 3 <br />