Laserfiche WebLink
<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, II <br />- 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 (1 (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 Jot 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 proposed <br />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 set <br />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 />The Planning Commission and City Council have reiterated the City policy of not <br />approving variances for issues where physical hardship can not be demonstrated. <br />The Council has reiterated concern where proposals for flag lots are introduced <br />into neighborhoods with more conventional lot sizes and setbacks. <br /> <br />4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />4.1 Based on the findings outlined in Section 3 staff recommends denial (approval) of the <br />request for a variance from Section 1004.02(D) of the City Code to reduce the width of <br />two single family residential lots from 85 feet to 66 feet for the purpose of splitting a <br />35,420 square foot parcel with 132.56 feet of frontage into two parcel at 1992 Cleveland <br />Avenue and a variance to reduce the lot square foot from 11,000 to 8,910 square feet. <br /> <br />PF3118 - RPCA (05/12/99) - Page 3 of 4 <br />