pm_880504 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page://: 6 Wednesday, May 4, 1988 Stokes questioned whether there had been improvements in the past. Dahlgren responded that wi thin the platting, outlots are un-buildable. If the sites platted and were metes and bounds parcels, they developed. Therefore, the outlot designation offers protection. on outlots system of were not could be the most Moeller expressed concern that this plat created substandard lots on Orchard Lane. DeBenedet made a motion to recommend denial of the plat, due to the fact that outlots A and B are non-buildable, and should be combined with lot 7, and that lots 1 and 2 in Block 2 are substandard, and the setback variances should be denied because of inadequate space in front of the building for a turnaround. The motion failed for lack of a second. Maschka moved and Berry seconded recommending approval of the preliminary plat and variances on Lots 7 and 8 only, and that 10 feet of right of way be dedicated on victoria Avenue as shown in the plan. Maschka indicated that the public had a chance in the past to protect the open space and did not, and now Reiling has the right to develop the property within the ordinance requirements. Maschka pointed out that lots A and Bare outlots and can't be built on, and that lots 1 and 2 in Block 2 were reasonable sized lots. Stokes inquired if a restriction could be placed on rear yard fill to keep it in a natural state. Dahlgren commented that the DNR has already restricted that. DeBenedet informed the commission that he still had a problem with the size of outlots A and B. DeBenedet moved and Moeller seconded that the motion be amended to require that lots 7, 8 and outlots A and B in Block 1 be combined into one lot. Roll Call: Ayes: Goedeke, Moeller, DeBenedet, Berry and Johnson Nays: Stokes, Maschka DeBenedet moved, Goedeke seconded that the motion be amended to delete any setback variances. DeBenedet pointed out that no