pf_03571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3 me 4 of the lots are undersized. 5 6 Mr. Trudeau, applicant, said he had no comments. 7 8 Mary Knodle, 2493 Simpson, asked if other homes are in similar situations. Thomas 9 Paschke explained similar non-conformity in the area and noted that the 30% impervious 10 surface requirement was not in place when most lots were built upon. Ms. Knodle asked 11 if the setbacks would be different for this lot. The setbacks would be 10 feet on the sides 12 and 30 feet in the front and rear. Ms. Knodle asked ifthe new owner could ask for future 13 variances regarding setbacks. (yes) 14 15 Chair Mulder stated he was not comfortable with this request because neither of the lots 16 meets the requirements. He discussed the recent requests for large garages, impervious 17 surface increases, etc. 18 19 Member Traynor said this would change the character of the neighborhood which has 20 larger lots and open space consistency. 21 22 Member Ipsen asked how common this has been in Roseville. (More in the past two 23 years than three years prior to that). 24 25 Member Blank explained that conditions could be attached. A tuck-under design could 26 be offered. 27 28 Chair Mulder closed the hearing. 29 30 MOTION: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to 31 recommend denial ofa 16.6 foot lot depth and a 1,664 sq. ft.lot size Variance to 32 Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) for Parcel "A", and a 33 10 foot lot depth and a 994 sq. ft. lot size Variance to Section 1004.016 34 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) for Parcel "B", because there is no 35 hardship, creating two substandard lots, and could be creating future hardships on 36 the site, and (Member Traynor) found that the project was inconsistent with the 37 neighborhood. 38 39 Ayes: 4 40 Nays: 0 41 Motion carried. 42 43 44 45 46