Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Thomas and Mary Short, Case No. 2052 <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />would app~ar from that perspE'cti'ie, that the CI;1plicants ha'ie a righ:: to <br />diviQe the land if appropriate 5tl eet f!"oJntage and utili!ies are available. <br /> <br />Attachej is a copy of the base ma!-' of this are<; of the City wl'\ere we <br />have indicated the propP.rty in question. You will notice thP. existing <br />lots t:-.at were double f!'antage that have been prev;ouslv divided to the <br />west on the north side of Burk!: Avenue. You wiil ,"}ote that the lets <br />on either side of the property in question ha\lC! not been divided as yet. <br /> <br />The: attached cVf)Y of t~ section map (1":200') shows that portions of <br />sone of the lots 00 the nort,h side of Burke Ave~ have no: dedicated <br />the 30 feet of a"ight~f-way necessary. Nonetheless, Burke Avenue ... <br />bee'l CGnStruCted and has been paved to a cul-de.sac on t~ east 8fId of <br />t~ Avenue (constructed by the Cit). some years ago). The applicants <br />include a )o.foot dedication fci' Burke Avenue on the south end of their <br />property ""3 is normally required by t.he City. <br /> <br />~~neering Considerations <br /> <br />Attached i8 a cupy of a statement from Douglas Strong from the <br />Engince1'iOl) Department noting the requirernent for the land dedicstion <br />end that additional assessments wilt t.e necessary for sanitary se"NeI'. <br />water mains, and storm sewer services.. 7his aSHSsment amounts to a <br />total of $1,5..\6.34. The report further notes that there are not grading <br />or drainaqe plans with the tHe, which will be necessary before a <br />buHding permit can be issued. F u:rthermore, there are sewer and water <br />services on Burke Ave!1Ue, but there will have tOo t.e 8 water tap to the <br />main (and Burke Avenue) for 8 house line to the building site. <br /> <br />Policy Considerations <br /> <br />TM minimum lat width and area as established b)' the Zoning Ordin'flce <br />are normally applied to new subdivisiom of land for single-family <br />purposes. Unless thera are extenuating circ.-umstances making a <br />particular lot difficult or uoreasonablp. to develop, the developer has the <br />right to plat a lot liS long as it meets or elt:ceeds the minimum <br />requirements. Availability of utilities., \'~hicular circulation, soil <br />conditions, and protection of the en\'ironment Bre important factors as <br />well. Recently, land divisions in RO$eville (in residential r.reas) for <br />small leftover parcels, often referred to as "infilhr.g", ftequentl)' do not <br />meet the norma] c;tandards, but are usually approved if the Itlts are <br />"reaso:.ably in scaleR with c-ther development in the area. Prior to <br />1'J59, the minimum 'ot size in Roseville was 75 feet. Therefore, there <br />Are man,!, $1J~h lots (and smallpr~ in rhe arp~. <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance Refeiences <br /> <br />The minimum si09!e- familJ' lot standards are stated In S~ction 1.290 <br />Paragraph 5 as foHows: <br /> <br />. ' ' " ',: , > ' . , ,', !'" ' " '~, ' ' : '. -,'. ,"....':.,'. :, '" ' " ' , ' <br />