My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03786
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3700
>
pf_03786
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 12:44:16 PM
Creation date
7/8/2013 10:31:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3786
Planning Files - Type
Division of Land
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
Page 1 of 2 <br />Thomas Paschke <br />From: Kris Simonson [straight_haired_curly@yahoo.com] <br />Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 8:04 PM <br />To: "RVCouncil <br />Cc: Thomas Paschke <br />Subject: Opposition to minor subdivision at 156 Woodlyn <br />October 7, 2006 <br />Dear City Council Members, <br />We have reviewed the proposal for a MINOR SUBDIVISION on the property at 156 Woodlyn Avenue, and we are <br />appalled that the Community Development Department (CDD) recommends approval. While the proposed lot may <br />seem to fit the requirements for R-1 zoning within Comprehensive Planning District 5, the CDD has not taken the <br />character of the neighborhood into consideration and has recommended a questionable easement. We wish to bring the <br />following points to the attention of the City Council. <br />1) The two resulting lots would both be significantly smaller than all the surrounding lots. <br />2) The new lot will barely meet the city minimum of 11,000 sq. ft. <br />3) The odd shape of the lot, with the required easement for the existing driveway, would make the new lot appear <br />smaller than 11,000 sq. ft.. The appearance would be of a 9100 sq. ft. lot. This property would not meet the intention of <br />the minimum lot size code. <br />4) Our neighborhood is well established and has an aging housing stock. A new house so awkwardly placed would <br />negatively affect our home values. <br />5) The original plot of this block created residential lots of equal size with the exception of the three lots under the <br />power line. These three lots are only wider in order to safely accomodate the power lines and towers. Please take this <br />into account when considering the useable size and appearance of the subdivision lots. <br />6) Allowing the driveway easement exception sets a precedent. We are concerned that other property owners ar <br />developers could decide to subdivide the rear half of other lots in the future. <br />7) We see no positive aspects to this subdivision except that the current owners would make extra profit when they <br />soon sell their property and abandon the neighborhood. <br />In conclusion, we strongly urge that you NOT approve this subdivision request. We will be attending the October 9th <br />council meeting and will be presenting a petition from the neighbors showing the wide spread opposition to this <br />proposal. <br />Sincerely, <br />Kristine Simonson <br />Stewart Roberts <br />10/09/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.