2013_0812_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PF13-009_RCA_081213.doc Page 2 of 3 4.0B ACKGROUND 11 4.1The properties, located in Planning District 12, share the Comprehensive Plan land use 12 designation of Low-Density Residential (LR), and the corresponding zoning 13 classification of Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR-1) District. 14 4.2Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy own both subject parcels and wish to relocate the shared 15 property boundary to correspond the yard space before selling the parcel on Saint 16 Stephen Street after the approval of the proposed RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION .17 4.3A MINOR SUBDIVISION application has been submitted in lieu of the preliminary plat/final 18 plat process because §1104.04E (Minor Subdivision) of the City Code establishes the 19 recombination process to simplify those subdivisions which seek “to divide one recorded 20 lot or parcel in order to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot...[in such a 21 way that will] not cause any portion of the existing lots or parcels to be in violation of 22 this regulation or the zoning code.” The current proposal meets these criteria. 23 5.0R EVIEW OF P ROPOSED M INOR S UBDIVISION 24 5.1City Code §1103.06 (Lot Standards) requires one-family residential parcels at street 25 corners to be at least 100 feet in both dimensions and comprise a minimum of 12,500 26 square feet of land area. The proposed, reconfigured parcels (shown in the site plan 27 included with this staff report as Attachment A) would be approximately 135 feet deep 28 and would include about 17,400 square feet of area. 29 5.2City Code §1103.04 (Easements) requires a 12-foot-wide drainage and utility easement 30 centered on the new, common property boundary. 31 5.3City Code §1004.02A (Residential Accessory Buildings) requires storage sheds to be 32 setback a minimum of 5 feet from the rear property boundary. While the aerial photo 33 includes a storage shed in Attachment C which appears to stand close to the proposed 34 property boundary, that image should not be taken as an accurate representation of the 35 location of the shed. In case the existing shed is less than 5 feet from the realigned rear 36 property boundary, addressing this nonconformity should be made a condition of an 37 approval of the proposed RECOMBINATION MINOR SUBDIVISION ; a substandard setback 38 could be addressed in one of the following ways: 39 a.The location of the proposed realigned property boundary could be adjusted to be 6 40 feet from the existing shed, to account for the drainage and utility easement; 41 b.The existing shed could be removed or relocated to another location to achieve the 42 required setback and accommodate the required drainage and utility easement; or 43 c.The applicant could apply for approval of an ADMINISTRATIVE DEVIATION if the 44 existing shed is not less than 3 feet from the realigned rear property boundary. 45 5.4In reviewing the application, comments from Roseville’s Development Review 46 Committee (DRC) were primarily from Public Works Department staff; their main 47 comments were as follows: 48 a.Standard drainage and utility easements (as shown in Attachment A) should be 49 dedicated.50