Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/09/06 <br />Minutes - Page 10 <br /> <br />be facing new challenges due to changing community <br />demographics, and that maintaining the status quo will no <br />longer be adequate. Mr. Thibodeau challenged the City <br />Council to meet those challenges as they moved through the <br />budget process, consider the additional needs, and fund the <br />Department at a level that would allow them to meet those <br />challenges and meet the expectations of Roseville residents. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Kough, Maschka; Ihlan; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />3.i Approve a Minor Subdivision for 156 WoodIynn Avenue W <br />Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 6:42 p.m. <br /> <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Sue and <br />Richard Stafne, 156 Woodlynn, for a Minor Subdivision, to create <br />a vacant developable parcel, consistent with S 11 04.04E (Three <br />Parcel Minor Subdivision) to divide their current .67 acre parcel <br />into two parcels - one to include the existing home and the other a <br />developable single-family residential parcel. Mr. Paschke noted <br />that the newly-created Parcel B would require an easement to <br />encompass a portion of the driveway for the existing home's <br />garage as noted and conditioned in the staff report dated October <br />9, 2006. Staff recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision, <br />subject to conditions in Section 7 of the staff report. <br /> <br />Discussion included size of Parcel B and whether it met the <br />11,000 square foot threshold without the easement; easement area <br />included on Parcel B; staffs advocacy for Lots A and B sharing <br />access, however noting that City Code allows for multiple access <br />points on a public street as long as impervious surface <br />requirements are met; and square footage of neighborhood lots. <br /> <br />1) Councilmember Kough, with Councilmember Ihlan's <br />concurrence, noting Lot B was inconsistent with the <br />character of the neighborhood and expressed a preference <br />for retaining large lots in the City of Roseville, and the need <br />to review current code, given the repeated various requests <br />being heard. <br /> <br />Minor Subdivision <br />156 WoodIynn <br />