pm_060104 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for January 4, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0104.htm e. must be submitted with the building permit application. f.Within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council, the applicant shall supply the final survey to the Community Development Director for review and approval. A certificate of survey shall be required on all proposed parcels. After completion of the review and approval by the City Manager, the survey shall be recorded by the applicant with the Ramsey County Recorder within sixty (60) days. Failure to record the subdivision within sixty (60) days shall nullify the approval of the subdivision. (Ord. 1171, 9-23-1996) Member Doherty asked for clarification of the west property line and the adjoining house and the drainage from south to north on the site. (The house is set back approximately 5 feet). Deb Bloom explained the drainage and grading. Jon Forman explained that alternatives 2 and 3 would require moving the driveway and repaving. He noted there is a potential buyer for each parcel. Chair Traynor asked how the trees will be preserved since Mr. Forman will simply sell the site but not develop the new homes. Forman noted that many oaks have been lost to oak wilt. Chair Traynor explained that there is no prohibition on an owner cutting trees down on their own site, but that tree preservation could be a condition of variance approval. Chair Traynor noted and accepted for the file a petition signed by neighbors opposing the variance and an email from Vivian Ramalingam of Acorn Road, also opposed to the project because of loss of trees, drainage and neighborhood ambience, and paths and parking along County Road B. Mr. George Letendre, 2121 West County Road B, stated that the variance statute was not met (undue hardship, uniqueness of the site, and altering the character of the site). He cited the Van Landershoot Case as a similar circumstance. The applicant is selling the site, there is no hardship. The neighborhood would not take place because of the cost to do them, but would be opposed because of drainage and lot coverage. Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road, suggested a 2 lot subdivision. There being no further comment, Chair Traynor closed the hearing. Chair Traynor expressed concern about the impact on the site, neighborhood and Acorn Road and has reservations on the variances. There still can be a three lot subdivision without a variance. Member Doherty expressed concern about drainage, especially on the west end adjacent to Parcel A and concern about adverse impacts in the neighborhood. The house to the west will appear dwarfed by the new homes. Motion 1: Chair Traynor moved, second by Member Doherty, to recommend denial of the variance because a variance will impact the character of the neighborhood and will not be needed without the proposed subdivision, and the need for the variance is created by the applicant. Member Bakeman said she was not concerned with Parcel A, which meets all requirements, and Parcel C could be created in many different ways. Member Wozniak explained that Parcel A meets the legal requirements. On Parcel C he felt that was little visual impact on County Road B homes since most are smaller and would be similar. He asked where the utility service for the existing home comes from (County Road B) and could Parcels B and C be turned to an east-west alignment. Ayes: 1 Nays: 3 Motion failed: 1-3 3 of 83/13/2006 8:52 AM