My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_00524
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF001 - PF999
>
500-599
>
pf_00524
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2016 2:37:06 PM
Creation date
2/9/2016 12:41:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
524
Planning Files - Type
Division of Land
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
� <br />LJ <br />U <br />July 2, 1969 <br />CA5 E NO: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCAT IC N : <br />ACTI�JN REQUESTED: <br />� � <br />524-69 <br />John Merr i i I <br />West of Fulham �treet, North of County Road B <br />(See Sketch) <br />Division of Existing Platted Lots <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />1. The properties in question are existing platted Lots b, I, and 8 which extend <br />from Fulham Street to St. Stephen Street. These lots are 270 +�eet deep from <br />street to street and are platted at a width of 129 feet. The Applicant propos�s <br />to divide the easterly half of the lots that will front or Fulham Street into <br />four lots. Thus,.instead of3 129 foot lots there would be one lot of 100 feet, <br />two with 90 feet and one with 107 feet, <br />2. Yo� will recalf that th� �c� size requiremenfis in the Village of Roseville are <br />85 feet for interior lots and 100 feet for carner lots, Thus, the legol limitation <br />on the division of land, in this case, would be 85 feet minimum lot fr�ntage <br />with a lot area of 11,000 squ�re feet, which of course, is easily met by the <br />proposed 90 foot frontage and �35 feet of depth. <br />3. From the standpoint of the subdivision ordinance, there would appear to be no <br />problem with respect to division of this property. In this case, howev�r, there <br />may be a question as to �the appropriateness of the Iot size, inasmuch as, most <br />of the {ots in this entire neighborhood are well over the minimum lot sizes <br />requiredo You will note from the sketch at the left that the lot sizes generafly <br />run in the vi c in ity of 120 feet and some are lar•ger than that < You w i I I note, <br />however, that on St < Croix Street to the west, lots were approved 86 feet in <br />widtho You will notice on the sketch that there is additional property across <br />the street from Fulham, which will obviously be available for development when <br />Fulham Streefi is extended from County Road B to Laurie Road, Perhaps if this <br />lo��d is also divided in scale with the current proposal (between 90 and 1Q0 feet) <br />the Appl icant's current proposal may be acceptableo 1Nhat we are saying, in <br />effect, is that though tne neighbor�hood in general, has lots of a larger size, <br />the lots directly across the street from each other on this section of Fulham could <br />well be at a slightly smaller scale, <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.