All posts in the topic Subdivisions (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Anonymous User at 2007 May 12 07:14 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Dick Lambert | Summary of Draft Recommendations for Hearing.doc | 2007 May 01 23:16 UTC |
In all due respect to Mr. Hess, can we set the bar a bit higher for topics than
whether the city of Roseville is out a few bucks from the forum being down an
extra day or so?
I believe subdivisions are a hot topic. How do we best balance a first-ring
suburb's interest in residential redevelopment and new housing options (and an
individual's property rights) against the interest in maintaining the character
and current density of our neighborhoods?
As a former member of the Planning Commission, subdivisions were difficult
matters to review in light of the relatively low standard in the code for
approving a subdivision. Should we add an element to the code regarding
neighborhood character, similar to a variance? I believe there may be a
special appointed group who will look at the subdivision issue (although I
admit I have not been following this very closely), but it may be helpful for
folks to get a sense of how the larger community views this issue via the forum
as the group begins its work.
Mark Traynor
> I believe subdivisions are a hot topic. How do we best balance a > first-ring suburb's interest in residential redevelopment and new > housing options (and an individual's property rights) against the > interest in maintaining the character and current density of our > neighborhoods? One of the minor new features of the software, is to add a list of identified "Hot Topics" to feature on the main page for this group. I've just made "Subdivisions" a hot or featured topic. See: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/ The topic has also come up in this forum on two other occasions: #1) Dan Roe asked for input on the topoic: lot subdivision issues - moratorium http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/151145 #2) Tim Pratt announced a call for citizens to serve on a committee looking at this issue. I believe the deadline to apply was Feb. 20th Lot Split Study Group http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/152373 In his post on this topic, Dan asked the questions (among others): How do we come up with a standard for the "right" density for an area? Or the right lot size? Or how close a home can come to the property lines, etc.? (What should the standards be?) Does anyone have any comments, ideas, or responses? Best wishes, Tim Erickson Temporary Forum Manager Roseville Issues Forum
Roseville has an accumulation of very disctinct neighborhood personalities.
Could these neighborhood "norms" be established to create future guidelines
for council and perhaps a less ambiguous master plan from which to make
subdivision decisions? Also, could we consider promotion for a more normal
nieghborhood, such as the new plot on Parker, over higher density
developments (Autumn Grove)? The big concern? Changing up density in
neighborhoods that have been more density relaxed. I feel this is a valid
concern and is something from which home owners should be protected. Usage
of parkways, pathways, parks and streets...all of our public amenities are
affected by these decisions. Being we are in the first rung, we are
landlocked and must ensure that our green spaces are not over trodden, while
maintaining the level of privacy and comfort that Roseville residents have
come to appreciate over the years.
Have a great day all!
Jeff Johnson
On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:18 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Being we are in the first rung, we are landlocked and must ensure
> that our green spaces are not over trodden, while maintaining the
> level of privacy and comfort that Roseville residents have come to
> appreciate over the years.
It would seem to me, that one of the questions that Roseville would
be facing as a first ring suburb, is that question of whether or not
it is desirable or possible to maintain the same level of privacy and
comfort (SPACE) that residents have enjoyed in the past.
Cities like St. Paul are experiencing "infill" (development in nooks
and crannies that were not fully used in the past) and there will be
some pressure on first ring suburbs to accommodate some of that
increased density.
Now, this won't happen overnight, but all communities change over time.
Is it really the best thing for Roseville to try and hang-on to
development patterns from 30 or more years ago - or will some
flexibility and change be both necessary and healthy for the
community as it looks forward?
Any thoughts,
Tim Erickson
Posting from the heart of St. Paul
Community Discussion of Residential Lot Split Draft Recommendations
What’s in Roseville’s future concerning Residential Lot Splits? Find out on May
2 when Roseville’s Single Family Residential Lot Split Advisory Group presents
its recommendations.
Several recent proposals brought by residents to split their larger lots into
two or more lots have raised questions in the community. On January 30, the
City of Roseville enacted an interim ordinance that placed a moratorium on
subdividing single family residential lots. The City Council wanted to study
current subdivision and zoning regulations to see if they should be adjusted to
meet community need. They appointed a citizen advisory group to study the issue
and work with the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City
Council.
The Single Family Residential Lot Split Advisory Group will present a draft of
their recommendations at the Planning Commission on May 2 at 6:30 p.m. at
Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive. The meeting is open to the
public. They will seek public input regarding their recommendations before they
are presented to the City Council on May 14.
If you are interested in learning more about the study visit the Lot Split
Study page or contact Economic Development Associate Jamie Radel at
651-792-7072.
To see a draft of what they will be presenting see the link below:
The following file was added to this topic:
On May 1, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Dick Lambert wrote: > The Single Family Residential Lot Split Advisory Group will present > a draft of their recommendations at the Planning Commission on May > 2 at 6:30 p.m. at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive. The > meeting is open to the public. They will seek public input > regarding their recommendations before they are presented to the > City Council on May 14. If anyone is able to attend this meeting and report back to the forum, I think it would be interesting. I have the sense, that most folks in the forum are not quite sure what to think about this issue. Here is a link to an article that appeared in the StarTribune a few weeks ago, along with an concrete example of how this might affect folks. Splitting up lots creating ill will Tougher restrictions could slow the rush to divide older, large single-family lots. http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1117932.html "Art Mueller has meticulously tended his wooded 2 acres in Roseville since he built his house there in 1949. But his plan to carve out a cul-de-sac along Acorn Road so he can divide his property into four lots has some neighbors up in arms. Mueller says he wants to make the most of his property's prime real estate value, but his critics say he will destroy the rural setting of their neighborhood. "It's created some bad feelings," said Mueller, 82, a plain-spoken real estate developer who will keep one of the four newly created lots for his house and sell the other three. "People just don't like change." Last weekend I drove around Roseville and looked closer at the very different neighborhoods, with different style housing on very different types of lots. I can see, where this issue might be much more important in parts of the city, while having little effect in other parts. Please, post use the forum to post your thoughts, experiences, or questions about this issue..... Tim Erickson Temporary Forum Manager Roseville E-Democracy
On May 1, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Dick Lambert wrote:
> What’s in Roseville’s future concerning Residential Lot Splits?
> Find out on May 2 when Roseville’s Single Family Residential Lot
> Split Advisory Group presents its recommendations.
Did anyone go to this meeting? Can anyone report back on the
recommendations of the advisory group and how well they were received?
Thanks,
Tim Erickson
E-Democracy.Org
Tam McGehee tried twice to post this message. I believe that her post did not succeed, because portions of the email were in Rich Text Format (which is apparently a problem with our software). - + - + - + - + - + Posted on behalf of Tam McGehee More info: Info about Tam McGehee: http://forums.e-democracy.org/ contacts/tammcgehee I was able to attend the Lot Split Advisory Meeting and I spoke following the presentation of the draft recommendations. I was asked, and agreed, to submit my comments in writing. Below is what I sent. I don't know when the final "draft" will be out, but the May 2 version appeared on the website on May 1 and should still be there. I do not have a large lot that could be divided, but what is happening, in my opinion, is the making of ground rules for developers to buy one or more lots, to tear down existing houses, to put in roads and to utilize the PUD process to suspend our ordinances and create new "subdivisions" within our existing neighborhoods. I have yet to talk to anyone who is in favor of this as a general policy. Although your remarks indicated that many individuals will not "have a dog in the fight," I believe we all have a stake in maintaining our neighborhoods. Diversity of lot size with protection for our present diversity is key. We have an unbeatable range of house styles and lot sizes for any potential resident. One can stay in Roseville, have a large lot and house for their children and move into a smaller house and lot in the same neighborhood when they tire of caring for the unused house and yard. This is stability, this is community. As for the "large lots" which the presentation lumped with the only 21% of the lots having less than the standard 11,000 sf., if we want young families here, perhaps we should keep the diversity of lot sizes, small mixed with larger. It is clear that the young children will gather to play in the neighborhood homes with larger lots. Do we really all want to have to go to the closest park and set up a system of parental oversight at the park to guarantee that our children are safe? More than ever it is important for kids to be able to play (exercise) in their immediate neighborhoods where adults that know them are watchful. Our lot sizes and diversity of lots and housing is the basis of our "character" as a community and a "first ring" suburb. Our "feel" is unique because of our neighborhoods. We are a great first ring suburb with many unique and wonderful neighborhoods. We should be proud of our community and celebrate the diversity, stability, and vitality of our neighborhoods. They are well designed and should remain as they are. (Ms. Bakeman and Ms. Berry are always speaking of "change as difficult," but I am not saying change is bad.) People should be able to redesign, remodel, even tear down and rebuild their homes on their lots. They can put in interesting landscaping or sculpture. What they should not be able to do is change the character of a neighborhood by subdivision. If they want a different size lot all they need do is look around the corner or across the street--and we should keep that feature. In the recent visioning, environment was very important to all the citizens. That, I believe, includes the greenspace, mature trees, wildlife, etc. One thing we have more than our share of on the west side is traffic brought in by the large commercial complexes. It is the larger lots in our areas that are providing safe places for our young children, our wildlife, and providing mature vegetation to absorb some of the air and noise pollution. If any of you take the time to drive down Acorn, remember that the area is right against 10 lanes of freeway traffic. This area is surely one of the most unique in Roseville and should be preserved, not developed into small lots. It has been well maintained and obviously cherished by the residents. The current developer, Mr. Meuller, developed the area in the first place, making plenty of money off platting the area and selling the lots. He should not take this opportunity to "foul his own nest" as a parting gift to this neighbors. He should support the maintance of what he created, not its destruction in the name of an additional buck he won't be able to take with him. [NOTE: It is my understanding that Mr. Meuller asked neighbors about dividing his lot in half--i.e., putting up one additional house on his current lot. The neighbors were willing to support that, but the next they knew he was before the Planning Commission asking for a subdivision with four additional homes. I do not live in this area and this information was gathered from individuals living in the area and presenting testimony at hearings before the Planning Commission.] Memorandum To: Lot Split Advisory Committee Roseville City Council Roseville City Manager Roseville Community Development Director From: Tam McGehee Date: May 9, 2007 Re: Lot Split Comments I am writing because I spoke at the public hearing regarding the draft proposal presented. I said at that time I would submit my comments in writing and I am now doing so to insure that they are accurately reflected and included. In general my impression of the draft document is that it is a thinly veiled attempt by the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission to establish an “open season” on Roseville neighborhoods. If enacted, these recommendations lay the foundation to convert any portion of any neighborhood into a subdivision designed and developed with the suspension of city ordinances by using the PUD process. Under these draft recommendations lies a threat to every neighborhood in Roseville and to every homeowner who relied on the stability of his neighborhood. First, I found the process flawed. 1) Three months is too short a time to evaluate a matter as serious as lot splits and zoning on a citywide scale. 2) The process was very poorly noticed. Most Roseville residents were and are totally unaware of the project. 3) Having the Advisory Committee dominated by the Planning Commission altered any actual “resident” input that was given. 4) Having the “hearing” on the same day that the “draft” report was put on the website certainly did not constitute adequate notice nor did it provide sufficient time for most individuals to study the report before addressing the committee. 5) The Roseville Wrap, delivered last week, carried no mention of the Committee, its report, or its presentation to the City Council. In general and in my opinion, the process and “report” were actually a sham designed to obtain the desired result, a result that was understood before the “process” was begun. My comments at the hearing are approximately those below, but first I would like to begin by quoting from the document, “for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the character, stability, and vitality of residential neighborhoods as well as commercial areas.” I believe this is a well-stated goal that all residents would gladly support. However, the individual items outlined in the report provide for the random destruction of neighborhoods by outside developers and isolated individuals motivated by greed. In fact, the report in total, appears to be designed to expedite the destruction of the stability diversity and integrity of our neighborhoods. A. General Single-Family Residential Subdivision Policy: I believe first and foremost that homeowners should be able to rely on the integrity of their neighborhoods. That means that a platted subdivision (and I believe that all of Roseville’s are platted) should be stable. No one should be able to divide or recombine platted lots except under very special circumstances. And, if such permission is granted by the City Council after a formal public hearing, the lots created by the division can be no smaller than the average of the adjoining lots or 11,000 square feet, whichever is larger. B. Subdivision Code: I see no reason for Item 3. At the only, and not well attended, “open house,” individuals were asked to select the types of development they preferred. The choices were clearly for cul du sacs and curved streets, both of which require that lot lines not be perpendicular to the front property line. So, either the “open house” was a farce, or there is something the group does not understand about angles. Item 4 regarding the approval of “private roads” is another unusual concept. I believe every home should be on a public street maintained by the City of Roseville. If a project has so little benefit to Roseville that the city is not willing to support a public road, then approval for the project should be denied. I very strongly disagree with the recommendations in Items 6 and 7a. Division of single-family platted lots should be handled only rarely, and then following public hearings with the lots created being no smaller than the average of the adjacent lots. (Note: I am suggesting average because it is a very simple and widely understood concept and the information needed is readily available on all plats.) Flag lots should simply not be permitted. In most cases they have inadequate access and provide a “roadway” on at least two sides of the adjacent property (or three sides in the case of an adjacent corner lot.) C. Zoning Code: I believe the appropriate, rational, and straightforward rule is to declare all platted lots legal at of a specific date. Roseville is blessed with a diversity of housing and lots. A person wishing to live here can chose a large, medium, or small lot with a large, medium, or small house—or any combination thereof. There is no need to create cumbersome, confusing, and unnecessary overlay zones which result in crowding and conformity rather than embracing diversity and enhancing the neighborhoods. Having stated my strong opposition to any “new zoning districts,” I will simply add that the discussion of pre and post May 21, 1959 seems an unnecessary and cumbersome waste of time. All lots are legal. That said there should be no PUDs in platted, residential areas. Such a project would most certainly be a violation of the neighborhood rights of all residents. D. Other City Standards: It would certainly be nice of the city to create incentives for environmentally friendly development practices. Some suggestions would be in order before one could agree or disagree, however. It could be wonderful to have a tree preservation program, but a sapling is hardly an adequate replacement for the destruction of a mature tree. In fact, properly drafted a tree preservation program could be a benefit; improperly drafted it could allow for harvesting of mature trees for replacement with saplings. These are the comments I made at the public hearings held on May 5th and some of the reasoning behind them. In sum, I agree with only the language of the proposed preamble to the zoning code and the minority position prohibiting flag lots. I most strongly disagree with the remainder. I believe that to allow the combination and division of platted, residential lots and the use of a PUD process in platted residential neighborhoods should be prohibited. To allow these activities is to destroy the integrity, stability, vitality, and diversity of Roseville’s neighborhoods—and to destroy the neighborhoods is to destroy the community. I believe that the draft recommendations presented on May 5 would result in policies and practices unacceptable to most Roseville residents. I certainly hope that the final draft of the Committee’s report will reflect some of the opposition that I and others have expressed. Posted on behalf of Tam McGehee More info: Info about Tam McGehee: http://forums.e-democracy.org/ contacts/tammcgehee - + - + - + - + - +
I participated in the Study Group for this topic, and wish that Tam McGehee would have been more specific in telling the Forum what recommendation(s) she thought were "making ground rules" that were destructive to neighborhoods. You can see for yourself. The final report for this study, including the data and maps from the appendices, has now been posted on the City's website <<http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/development>www.ci.roseville.mn.us/development >. The report will be presented to the City Council at their meeting on Monday night, May 14th. Council meetings are televised, and of course, people always welcome in the audience. Mary Mary Bakeman, Chair Roseville Planning commission
Concerning Ms. McGehee's statement about the study group not being mentioned
in the Roseville Wrap or Roseville City News, I would just say that this is
the last place I would look for information on what is happening in our city
government.
The best way for citizens to keep tabs on city government activity
(including this study group) is to call city administration and get their
email address on the public notification list so they will get the agendas
emailed to them three days prior to the meeting. The cost is free.
I still chuckle how one of last year's issues of the Roseville City News had
the headline of Chris Miller being appointed interim city manager, but when
you opened up to the second page, it had Neal Beets listed as City Manager.
Apparently the second page had no idea what the first page was doing.
If people read the 50 or so city newsletters I have read from other
communities... Well that's probably a topic for another thread.
John M. Kysylyczyn, owner
K Solutions, LLC
3083 Victoria Street, Roseville, MN 55113
E-mail: <email obscured>
Home office: (651) 484-1384
www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004