CC_Minutes_2007_0212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12, 2007 Page 15 of 30 For the record, Ms. Simonson presented a Petition signed by neighbors, the second one presented regarding this proposal. "As neighbors of the proposed MINOR SUBDIVISION for 156 Woodlyn, we wish to express our opposition. We do not believe the proposal meets the in- tention of City Code 11 03.06F (which states, "side lines of lots shall be substan- tially at right angles or radial to the street line.") We also do not believe waiting until Parcel B requests a building permit is a prudent requirement. If this pro- posal is approved, the driveway should be moved before replat is finalized. The new driveway will also be very constricted near the garage. The property line, required setback, and existing building do not leave an adequate ap- proach. Finally, while the City Codes do not recognize neighborhood character, we do believe that this issue continues to plague Roseville and should have been addressed years ago. Subdivisions of this type do not fit within the inten- tion of the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size code and they negatively affect neighborhoods." Ms. Simonson and Mr. Roberts spoke in opposition to the requested Minor Subdivision; summarizing that the proposed subdivision didn't fit with the origina110t intentions. Ms. Simonson opined that the two lots did not appear to be in keeping with the balance in size and rectangular lot appearance of surrounding properties. Ms. Simonson provided, from a mathematical standpoint, substantial and right angle interpretations and her definitions. Mayor Klausing opined that it seemed, in general, when neighbors spoke to their opposition of or support for a particular project, they worked backward from their conclusion to provide rationale for their conclusion. Mayor Klausing noted the need for Counci1members to apply uniform standards fairly not based on appearance. Counci1member Ih1an personally questioned existing utilities and easement locations related to the proposed driveway location. Mr. Roberts opined that the applicant appeared to be attempting to rational- ize definition of a right angle or radial standard to make construction on the two parcels fit and identified the root of neighborhood objection that this lot was not appropriate. Quentin Heckert, 3050 Woodbridge Mr. Heckert advised that he had previously sent his comments bye-mail; no copy was available.