pf_03556 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Marie Churchward 3093 Street North Roseville, MN 55112 Mr. Thomas Paschke, City Planner City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1899 Re: Comment on Lot Line Modification request for 3103 Asbury Street North Dear Mr. Paschke: I appreciate the information you have provided to me by voice mail today. From it I understand that the City Council will be asked to modify existing lot lines on the Albertson property at 3103 North Asbury this evening. The underlining assumption must be that a variance is not required to create a lot that is essentially 6~ feet in width where a house would be placed. This is a legalistic assumption and mocks the basis of the Roseville City Code. The code has been adopted to protect thc interests of the City and property owners. By manipulating the lot lines in an effort to meet the minimtlm lcgal requirements of the code, the applicant is not only avoiding the intent of the code but is eroding its very foundation. The City should deny the request for three sound reasons: 1) The proposed modification still does not meet the minimum requirements of the Roseville City Code. The code requires that lot width be "measured within the lot boundaries at the required front yard setback." (Ord. 1002, LOT WIDTH). Furthermore code recluires that the minimum set back in this case be 40 feet. "If, after May 21, 1959, existing houses on fifty percent (50%) or more of the frontage of any block have a predominant front yard different from that herein specified, all buildings hereafter erected shall conform to the average front yard set-back of the two adjacent houses on the same side of the street, provided this regulation shall not be interpreted so as to require a front yard of more than forty feet (40') in depth." (Ord. 1004.01E). The existing set back is over fifty feet (50'). The applicant appears to be proposing either a thirty (30') set back with a lot width of eighty-five feet (85') or a forty foot (40') set back with a lot width of sixty-five feet (65'). Neither proposal meets existing City code. 2) Modifying the set back to forty feet (40') with a lot width of eighty-five feet (85') still does not meet the minimum requirements for a front yard set back, which is thirty feet (30') from the property line according to municipal code (Ord. 1004.016 Front Yard Building Setback.) because creating the new lot would place the existing house within eighteen feet (18') or less of the new front yard property line. This does not meet existing City Code. The only way around this is to declare the lot line parallel to the street a side yard lot line. The existing house could be within ten (10') of such a line. However, this remedy creates another serious problem. 3) Creating this odd shaped lot will burden the City with administrative headaches for years. For example, if the City grants this lot line modification by defining the boundary to be a side yard, it is possible for a future owner of the new parcel to erect a fence 61/2 feet tall in front of the existing house. Another potential conflict will occur if the owners of the proposed new lot decide to construct a