Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 4 <br /> <br />Wednesday, April 5, 1989 <br /> <br />Schubring stated that Mr. Schultz should be required to build <br />wi thin the ordinance and that no variances should be granted. <br />Schubring testified there are primarily 100 foot plus lots on the <br />west side of Victoria within 1000 feet of the site. Schubring <br />stated that the neighborhood is happy with the existing openness <br />of the area and that the proposal would hurt his property value. <br />Schubring pointed out that there were 21 properties on the <br />petition against the proposal and that the acceptable alternative <br />would be to split the property into two 100 foot lots so that the <br />development would be in harmony with the neighborhood. <br /> <br />An unidentified resident agreed with the points made by Roger <br />Schubring and pointed out that it would be strange to have an old <br />house sandwiched between two new houses. She stated she lived <br />across from the site and likes the existing big lots. <br /> <br />Schubring pointed out that it was hard to visualize where the <br />property lines would be and difficult for him to visualize where <br />the house would go. <br /> <br />Mrs. Atlin had no objection to the right to recoup an investment <br />but objected to the approval of variances. Mrs. Atlin testified <br />that the development should be consistent with the existing 100 <br />foot lots in the neighborhood. Mrs. Atlin added that the 75 foot <br />lots across victoria are not relevant because Victoria is an <br />established boundary. Mrs. Atlin stated that Schultz is out to <br />make money while the homeowners in the area are trying to protect <br />the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Stokes asked what the side yard requirement would be for the <br />lots. Dahlgren replied that side yard setbacks for new lots <br />created would be 10 feet while the sideyard requirement for lots <br />created before 1959 is 5 feet. <br /> <br />Stokes asked if it would be possible to make the northerly lot 85 <br />feet and have an 8. 1 foot side yard with the existing house. <br />Dahlgren stated that the City could approve a lot division which <br />would result in that. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that Schultz should consider this option. <br /> <br />Goedeke stated he had the same thought and with that it would <br />make it more difficult to play with the 50 foot lot. <br /> <br />Johnson questioned what would happen to the 50 foot lot. Goedeke <br />answered that it would be combined with the other lot. <br />