Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Section 1103.04 outlines the requirements for drainage easements and Section 1103.07 <br />outlines the requirements for parkland dedication. <br /> <br />3.0 STAFF COMMENT <br /> <br />3.1 In reviewing this request, staff made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 1004.02(D) requires a minimum lot width of 85 feet and a minimum lot <br />area of 11,000 square feet for interior lots in an R-l zoning district. Based on <br />the proposal, (Parcel "A" at a width of 66.0 feet and an area of 8,910 square feet <br />and Parcel "B" at a width of 66.56 and an area of 26,484 square feet) two <br />variances are necessary to proceed with the minor subdivision request. The <br />proposal could be reduced to one (1) variance creating a lot with frontage of 85 <br />feet if modifications were made to the proposal. <br /> <br />2. There is a wide range of parcel size in this neighborhood, with lot areas ranging <br />from 8,960 square feet to 43,750 square feet and lot widths ranging from 66 feet <br />to 175 feet. <br /> <br />3. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Section III Residential <br />Areas within the following subsections: I - Comprehensive Goals And Policies, <br />II - Community Wide (General) A, B (1), (2) & (5), C (1), (3) & (11), and III - <br />Residential Areas A, B (1), (3(a, b, and c)) & C (l(a and c)). <br /> <br />4. The proposal meets the development density requirements for this area. <br /> <br />5. Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to <br />demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a <br />variance. Mr. Eggessa has not demonstrated a physical hardship or a practical <br />alternative. He has indicated a desire to remain a Roseville resident, and by <br />subdividing his large lot he would construct a new home and provide a rental <br />opportunity within the existing home. <br /> <br />6. The proposed variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the public health, <br />safety, or general welfare, provided standards/conditions are attached to insure <br />that redevelopment of the site is completed in accordance with the plans <br />proposed by the applicant. <br /> <br />7. Over the past two years the Planning Commission and/or City Council have <br />considered similar requests. Though each request is unique and has a different <br />set of circumstances, in the case of 1025 & 1027 Shryer Avenue, 2120 Cleveland <br />Avenue, 2207 County Road B, and 946 Burke Avenue, the requests were denied. <br /> <br />PF3118 - RCA (080999).doc Page 3 of 4 <br />