My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01966
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01966
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2024 9:27:22 AM
Creation date
2/20/2024 9:26:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1925
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.
/
26
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
PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />This property has previously been proposed to be divided by the <br />applicant and was last considered at the April <br />e etindeg the exeof s Plan ing <br />150 <br />Commission at which eit was lots a d retain proposed <br />existing 50 foot lot. <br />foot lot into two 75 foot <br />You will recall that the applicant owns 200 feet <br />Sfrontage <br />r n gelot onthe <br />he <br />west side of Victoria Street consisting of fo existing house on <br />no house on it) a ►d an existing 150ot.footAllot <br />Pre with <br />Pr proposals to <br />approximately the south half of that <br />divide the 200 feet into three lots in any form have been denied. <br />Mr. Schultz now proposes to divide the property into two lots only. <br />The north lot would be 85 feet in width (the current ngle lot <br />containing minstandard)the <br />and the remaining 115 feet would bfoot alot l would be eliminated and <br />existing house. Thus, the existing <br />5 foot width lot. <br />become part of the new proposedin <br />The existing house would be retained, but with ran <br />�irQment In the ot kcase <br />on <br />the north side. Ten feet would be the norm q it should be <br />of a newly developed lot as is the case here. <br />However, <br />th sides <br />ke t in mind that all of the lots in this area of the City on foot side yardosetback. <br />R <br />of Victoria can be developed (built on) <br />with a 1foo at which time the <br />This is because these lots were platted <br />new Ordinance requirements of 10 feet wet into <br />maya fec developed <br />Ordinance states that those 15 t footatted side before <br />1959 setback. Thus, this new <br />under the old standard ofa <br />lot with the 8 foot setback would well exceed the standard for other <br />lots in the immediate area along Victoria. <br />The proposal is to simply divide the 200 feQt of onwould tage into be 115 feet. <br />two lots - <br />The north lot would be 85 feet and the remainder ro osal noting the <br />Mr. Schultz has attached <br />1°uletter <br />asoutlining `ol9de 'the land into two 100 <br />difficulty of moving the se <br />foot lots. As you know, the lots to the southare <br />width. <br />e1 0 feet in width <br />and the immediate lots to the north are 110 feet <br />7 June 1989 <br />1966 <br />Eugene Schultz <br />West Side of Victoria Street, <br />Between Millwood and Brenner <br />Avenues (see sketch) <br />Subdivision of Platted Lot <br />1. <br />7. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.