pm_990512 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ayes: Rhody, Mulder, Olson, Klausing, Cunningham, Egli Nays: None Abstain: Wilke 4. Communications from the Public: The Planning Commission accepted a letter from Carmen Bell (May 6) regarding Central Park history and planning. 5. Consent Agenda: None G. Public Hearings: Ga. Planning File 3118. Seth Egessa request for a variance from Section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance regarding lot width, to allow a minor subdivision to occur on property located at 1922 Cleveland Avenue, Roseville, MN. Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner, Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff report dated May 12, 1999. He explained the variance and subdivision requests to create two residential lots. He stated the staff recommends denial because of the lack of physical hardship and the applicant had no alternatives. Member Rhody asked for the history of flag lots. City history has been to not approve flag lots that are on normal rectangular lots in neighborhoods. Member Egli asked if there are alternatives that staff would suggest. Thomas Paschke explained an alternative wherein one lot would be a standard lot, the second a flag lot. Mr. Eggessa stated he bought the property in 1996, and has begun the clean-up and new driveway process on the site. He proposes a new home, but in the future would be willing to remove the existing 1925 home. The existing home is difficult to remodel. He proposes using the existing home for a family rental property. Chair Klausing asked if the applicant would be allowed to build a house on the site while living in the existing house. Member Cunningham asked if it would be practical to demolish the existing house after nine years. Mr. Eggessa stated the two- lot subdivision was the most appropriate solution. Adjacent lots to the north are 66 feet in width. Mr. Eggessa stated the house to the south is similarly setback. Member Cunningham stated that the flag lot is sometimes disapproved because of difficult access. Susan Gilbertson, 2000 Cleveland, noted she has lived in this area for 20 years. She felt the small lot proposed would decrease the value of her property. The lot is not large enough for a garage. No further comments where offered. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Member Cunningham stated that an attached garage on the small lot may add too much impervious surface on the site. The applicant must, by code, have enough space for a two-car garage. Member Mulder noted that the Planning Commission decision is a long-term property value and impact question. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Rhody to recommend denial of the request for a variance from Section 1004.02(D) of the City Code to reduce the width of two single family residential lots from 85 feet to 66 feet for the purpose of splitting a 35,420 square foot parcel with 132.56 feet of frontage into two parcels at 1992 Cleveland Avenue and a variance to reduce the lot square foot from 11,000 to 8,910 square feet. Chair Klausing noted some similar lots, but no physical hardship was demonstrated. Ayes: Wilke, Mulder, Olson, Klausing, Rhody, Egli, Nays: Cunningham