My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1981_1012_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1981
>
1981_1012_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 10:15:04 AM
Creation date
1/9/2012 10:12:45 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7 October 1981 <br />I U or 1.1 kyk I " %N, LM 11110 0141:40 <br />CASE NUMBER: 61-1342 <br />APPLICANT: Veronica Miller <br />LOCATION: West of victoria, Opposite Lake Owasso <br />(see sketch) <br />V.,W#J�+ � ,EUSTED: Divislon of Land <br />1. The property in question is 100 feet in width with a depth of 560 feet (±) <br />with a lot east of Victoria Avenue with a depth of 103.5 (north side) and <br />I 1 1 <br />125,25 (south side) . Though the application .is for the "division of a <br />platted lot". it is clear from the surrey that the intent is to divide the <br />property into three lots, labeled "A", 11B11, and "C" on the attached sketch. <br />Thus, according to City regulations, the land should be platted rather <br />than simply divided. <br />2. Attached is a copy of the proposed survey and a copy of a portion of the <br />section map- showing the proposed division in relationship to contiguous <br />Properties. You will notice that Lot B is proposed to be approximately <br />155 feet deep, containing a net land area of 15,515 square feet. You will <br />notice that the land area for -the lot to the north which was similarly <br />divided some years ago, has a depth of 250 f eet. You may wish to question <br />the applicant regarding the appropriateness of making Lot B somewhat greater <br />in depth to produce a lot more reasonably in scale with the 410 foot lot <br />proposed to the west which contains the existing house. <br />3. Lot C you will notice has minimal depth but there is an existing lot to <br />the north which has already been developed at a similar depth. Thus, <br />the precedence for allowing development on the east side contiguous to the <br />lake in the area has been established,, <br />4. Subject to any engineering considerations, it would appear that the proposed <br />division is reasonable, with the possible exception of adding greater <br />depth to the proposed "B" parcel,, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.