1981_0601_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I 6 May 1981 PEANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER.- 1306-81 I APPLICANT Emery A. Sol ie/Roger & David Wes tlund LOCATION: On Brenner Court,, Northwesterly of Old Highway 8 ACTION REQUESTED: Division of a Lot PLDVVI�G S: About a year and a half ago, the applicants platted the Brenner Court cul-de-sac creating seven residential lots one of which was occupied by an existing single family home. The remainder of the property was zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling Units. As is the case with many recent two family lots developed in Roseville end in the Metropolitan Area in general) they propose to now divide the lots so that each half of the duplex may be sold as a single unit. The applicants are therefore proposing - - sing to divide five of the remaining lots which are unbuilt on for this purpose. one of the problems with the development on this land has been the existance of a power line easement on the northerly 75 feet of the platted area. Because the easement normally restricts the development of a structure under the easement, this causes some problems in placing structures on two of the lots, that being Lots 5 and 6 (on the north side of the cul-de-sac), If the lots are not to be divided, this causes no particular problem inasmuch as it simply creates a large area of open space on one side of the structure. You will notice this by examining the attached copy of the plat and proposed lot divisions. You will notice that the proposed divisions of Lots 5 and 6 create rather strange lot lines, if each of the lots (as divided) are to be relatively equal . We have suggested to the applicants that they attempt to seek a better solution for these two lots, either by seeking permission to place a portion of the structures under the power line easement, or attempt to create a more practical lot line division by using a revised duplex plan, and/or developing lots with less equal lot areas. We have not seen the results of this attempt at this time, though hopefully the applicants will have accomplished a better q .,92'ution prior to the Planning Commission hearing. If each of the units (each half of the duplex) has a separate water and sewer hook-up, and the lots could be divided in a logical manner, the City has normally approved such division in the past. In other words., the City has accepted the concept of separate ownership for duplex units, each on its own divided lot., our challenge in this case would appear to be one of attempting to achieve a more workable lot division with respect to Lots 5 and 6 of the subdivision.