Laserfiche WebLink
T'ho�m�as and Mary Sh�or't,, Case No. 2052 <br />msa <br />would appear from that perspective, that the apipl,ican�ts have a right to <br />dlivi,de the land if appropriate street frontage and utilities are available. <br />Attached is a copy olf the base, map, of this area of the City where we <br />have indicated the property in question. You will •not,ice the existing <br />lots that were double frontage that have been preivioiusly divided to the <br />welst on the north side of Burke Aveinue . You will note that the lots <br />on elit,her side of the pro,p�erty, in question have not been divided as yet. <br />Engineering Considerations <br />Policy Considerations <br />The minimum lot width and area as established by the <br />Zoning Ordinance <br />are normally' apipilied to new subdivisions of land <br />for single-family <br />purposes. Uriless there are extenuating circumstances <br />making a <br />particular lot difficult or unreasonable to develop, the <br />developer has the <br />right, to plat, a lot as longs as it meets or exceeds the minimum <br />requiraments. Availability of utilities, vehicular <br />circulation, soil <br />conditions, and protection of the environment are important factors as <br />weill. Recently,, land divisions *in Roseville in residential areas) for <br />,small leftover parcels, often referred to as "infilling", <br />frequently do not <br />�meet the normal standards, but are, usually approved <br />if the lots are <br />111reasonably in scale "' with other development in the <br />area. Prior to <br />1959, the minimurn lot size in Roseville was 75 feet,. <br />Therefore, there <br />are many such lots (and smaller) in the area,. <br />Zoning Ordinance Referencies <br />The minimum, single-family lot st,andlards, are stated in Section 7.290 <br />Paragraph 5 as follows: <br />