All posts in the topic Subdivisions (Short link)

From: Tim Erickson Date: 2007 Feb 23 14:51 UTC Short link

> 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
    

From: Tim Erickson Date: 2007 Feb 23 22:33 UTC Short link

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
    

From: Tim Erickson Date: 2007 May 02 20:38 UTC Short link

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
    

From: Tim Erickson Date: 2007 May 11 18:42 UTC Short link

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

  - + - + - + - + - +
    

From: Anonymous User Date: 2007 May 12 07:14 UTC Short link

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