pm_890405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION page# 3 Wednesday, April 5, 1989 Goedeke asked property line. if the stake located on the south corner is a Schultz replied that he did not know. Goedeke asked if the applicant had checked on the cost of relocating the dwelling. Schultz answered that he had not but he knows approximately what it would cost. Goedeke asked if he had explored the possibility of moving the existing house to a different location on the property in question. Schultz answered that he had not. Jane Atlin, 2989 Victoria, stated that the previous owner had said that he had bought a 200 foot lot and platted the 50 foot lot off at a later date. Dahlgren stated that the 50 foot lot was platted off before 1959 and that from the ordinance standpoint, the key was that the lot existed prior to 1959. Richard Atlin, 2989 Victoria, pointed out that last month, the applicant had been directed to go try to work out an alternative with the neighborhood which he hadn't done. Atlin asked why the applicant didn't discuss the matter further with the neighborhood. Schultz replied that the last time he had talked to Mr. Atlin, he had indicated that he would oppose any plan for development on the site. Johnson pointed out that the city doesn't have authority to demand the applicant to meet with the neighborhood and that it was only a suggestion. Richard Atlin asked how many people did Mr. Schultz contact. Schultz answered that originally he went up and down Victoria and got all the signatures except four. Schultz stated he would be glad to talk to Mr. Atlin to see if something could be worked out. An unidentified resident, 3010 victoria Street, Mr. Schultz hadn't talked to them after the last when Mr. Schultz asked them to sign the original said that everyone else signed. testified that meeting and that petition, he had Johnson noted that a letter and petition in opposition to the proposed lot division had been received from Roger Schubring, 3013 North Victoria. Roger Schubring, 3013 victoria, stated that his letter adequately discussed his opposition to the project. Schubring added that Schultz had not discussed the matter with him further and that he had mislead other people by telling them that they had signed his petition when they had not.