pm_780802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-4- Discussion Mr. Tom Anderson, 1042 Ruggles, presented a petition from 16 neighbors e~ressing their opposition to the proposal 0 Mr 0 Anderson stated that. the neighbors felt the proposed rezoning would be a detriIrent to their property f create additional traffic on Iexington Avenue and cause added traffic congestion at the corner of Ruggles and Iexingtono In additionf he stated the neighbors wen~ especially concerned that if the property were to be sold in the future v the next tenant nay propose a diffe:r:ent use which would be permitted in the B-1 district.c Mr ~ SiIrons asked if it would be a reg:ui.I:errent that a sidewalk be constructed as part of the developItEnt. Mr. Dahlgren stated that it is no:rna.lly not the case to reqwL:r8 sidewalks with a rezoning but only if the property were to be developed ina future tinea Mr 0 Sireens questioned whether the owners would be p€l"wtted to :rent the upstairs of the property as an apartrcento Mr. Dahlgren stated that apartIrent rental was not permitted in the B-1 zoning 0 Mr. V. Johnson asked if a variance to R-l zoning would be possible in order to pe:rmi t the site to be used as an attorney J s office and also maintain the R-1 zoning 0 Mr 0 Dahlgren stated that the Roseville code did not pe:rmi t variances to the zoning of a property nor is such practice ccmron in the TIEtropolitan area> Mr 0 Rukavina asked what the perIni tted uses were in Q. B-1 dist.rictc Mr. Dahlgren indicated the B~ I district allows professional and business offices, TIEdical and dental offices, hospital, sanitaduros and rest horres, private clubs and lodges, beauty parlors, greenhouses, and lawn and ga-rden centers G Mrs. Dressler stated she felt the rezoning would be inappropriate since the bank, located across the street from the proposed si:te g present! y serves as: a transition to the res i- dentlal property on the north and that the proposed rezoning, in her opinion, could be construed as an extension of strip zoning for Lexington Avenue. Rukavina rroved, Dressler seconded, that the Corrmission reoormend denial of Tieso & Stevens request for rezoning from R-l to B-1 at 1840 North Lexington Ave;.ooo Roll Call, Ayes: Cushing, Rukavina, Dressler, Sim:::>ns, Mastel, Johnson, Nays: None. Planning File 1135 - 'Ihornas Connelly r~st for preliminary plat at 1870 Alta Vista Drive Presentation Mr 0 Dahlgren indicated that the proposed parcel of land is located on Alta Vista Drive with approximately 361 feet of frontageo The applicant proposes to divide the property into four lots, each with 90 feet of frontageo Because of the rugged terrain of the site, developnent of the property by being a cul de sac was not feasiblec As a result., the four lot concept appeared the best solutiono Mr> Dahlgren did indi.cate f though, that the Comnission should consider providing sare form of access to the parcel imrediate1y to the north. At the present tine this parcel is landlocked and if this application were to be approved as submitted, the northerly parael would remain landlockedc Mro Dahlgren indic- ated that he had suggested to the applicant that he contact. the property amer to the north to dete:r:roi.ne if a mutual solution could be obtained. Mr. Connelly stated that he has CMned the property sinc,e 1953f with intent at sorce point to construct single family resldences on the property 0 He stated he had talked to the