2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

P ROPOSAL 1 John Ellering proposed to subdivide the property into two parcels for future development of an 2 additional one-family, detached home. The existing home at 990 County Road B would be 3 situated on the proposed Parcel A, and the new Parcel B would face Burke Avenue. As proposed, 4 Parcel B would be shallower and comprise less area than the minimum requirements, 5 necessitating the requested variance. Staff from Roseville’s Planning and Engineering Divisions 6 could not support the nonconforming subdivision as proposed (nor the necessary variance to lot 7 size standards); staff does, however, support a conforming subdivision of the site and a variance 8 for the excess impervious coverage of the existing improvements on a revised Parcel A. Mr. 9 Ellering understands staff’s position with respect to his original proposal, and is open to revising 10 the application for conforming parcels and the impervious surface variance; this RCA reviews 11 the revised proposal as recommended by City staff which is illustrated in the site plan included 12 with this report as RCA Exhibit C. 13 The minor subdivision proposed in Planning File 1174 in 1979 was much like the present 14 proposal, but it would have dedicated the necessary ROW to County Road B and Burke Avenue, 15 and the southern parcel would have been another three feet deeper than the present proposal. 16 While the April 4, 1979 Planning Commission minutes reflect some concern about the 17 substandard nature of the Burke Avenue parcel, they unanimously recommended approval of the 18 subdivision but requested that the supplied survey be updated to show the distance between the 19 existing home and the proposed new parcel boundary so that the City Council could give more 20 informed consideration to the relationship between the existing home, the new property line, and 21 the depth and size of the southern parcel. The City Council denied the subdivision request, but 22 the “executive” minutes do not reflect the discussion that led to the denial. 23 When exercising the so-called “quasi-judicial” authority on variance and subdivision requests, 24 the role of the City is to determine the facts associated with a particular request and apply those 25 facts to the legal standards contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the 26 facts indicate a subdivision proposal that meets the relevant legal standards and will not 27 compromise the public health, safety and general welfare, then the applicant is likely entitled to 28 the approval. The City has much more latitude to evaluate whether a variance application passes 29 the “practical difficulty test,” discussed in the Variance Analysis section below, and whether the 30 request ought to be approved. Finally, the City is able to add conditions to subdivision and 31 variance approvals to ensure that the likely impacts on and around the subject property are 32 adequately addressed. 33 SA UBDIVISIONNALYSIS 34 A minor subdivision application has been submitted in lieu of the preliminary plat/final plat 35 process because §1104.04E (Minor Subdivision) of the City Code establishes the three-parcel 36 minor subdivision process to simplify those subdivisions “which create a total of three or \[fewer\] 37 parcels, situated in an area \[adequately served by public utilities and streets\], and the new parcels 38 meet or exceed the size requirements of the zoning code.” The current application can meet all of 39 these criteria. 40 Minor subdivision proposals are reviewed primarily for the purpose of ensuring that all proposed 41 lots meet the minimum size requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes, and that adequate 42 easements and rights-of-way are in place or provided. As a minor subdivision of residential 43 property, the proposal is subject to the minimum lot size, easement, and right-of-way standards 44 PF14-017_RCA_081114.doc Page 2 of 6