My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_071107
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
pm_071107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2008 12:00:29 PM
Creation date
2/6/2008 11:43:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/7/2007
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes -Wednesday, November 07, 2007 <br />Page 2 <br />5. Public Hearings <br />Chair Bakeman reviewed the Public Hearing process. <br />a. PLANNING FILE 07-060 <br />Request by Curtis Brown, 1754 Alta Vista Drive, for a Minor Subdivision and <br />Variance to Roseville City Code, §1004 (Residence Districts) for lot dimension and <br />area requirements. <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-060. <br />Mr. Lloyd reviewed the request of Mr. Brown for approval of VARIANCES to lot size <br />requirements and approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION to allow the creation of two (2) <br />substandard residential parcels at 1754 Alta Vista Drive. Mr. Lloyd provided a brief history <br />and review of public record on past actions; lack of apparent hardships to grant a <br />variance; and consistency of the request with previous lot splits in the area. <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was providing no formal recommendation to the Planning <br />Commission; and provided options for the Commission to consider in their deliberations; <br />based on the comments of Sections 4 and 5, and subject to the findings and conditions of <br />Section 6 of the project report dated November 7, 2007. <br />Questions by Commissioners to staff, and discussion, included Minnesota Statute <br />provisions prohibiting exclusive consideration of financial hardship findings for granting <br />approval; access to Dale Street and existing curb cut; size of property below park <br />dedication thresholds; clarification of and possible survey data errors creating different <br />dimensions due to platting prior to 1959 and changes to the provisions once the lot was <br />split, with staff applying more restrictive measures until a new survey had been performed. <br />Commissioner Wozniak personally opined that the City Council, in the future, consider <br />revising its subdivision ordinance to allow park dedication fees to be extracted from lot <br />splits, even when less than one (1) acre, due to the increasing development of infill lots <br />and including contribution of those lots to the City's park system. <br />Further discussion included setback clarifications; and impervious surface coverage. <br />Applicant, Curtis Brown, 1754 Alta Vista Drive <br />Mr. Brown concurred with staff's comments; and advised that in 1986, when Ramsey <br />County reconstructed Dale Street, a curb cut was installed to provide access; however Mr. <br />Brown noted that nor formal or written agreement was in place. <br />Public Comment <br />Jeff Beech-Garwood, 1767 Dale Street (south of applicant) <br />Present, but no comment. <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing. <br />Further discussion included size of the proposed lots and inaccuracy of current <br />dimensions; current legal, non-conformity of the parcel by virtue of age and history; <br />setback requirements of R-1 Districts versus an Overlay District; current recording process <br />(from 2005, and reaffirmation by the City Council recently) of easements and property <br />lines; and increases in Dale Street right-of-way with the proposed lot split. <br />Additional discussion included hesitation of the Commission to approve substandard lots; <br />lack of support from the Commission for any future return by the applicant for variance <br />requests; lot splits of adjoining properties and continuity of the neighborhood; and lack of <br />objection from neighbors regarding the proposal; Dale Street traffic and access; need for <br />infill housing in Roseville; current neighborhood characteristics with small homes on <br />smaller lots; and potential size of the house on the additional parcel. <br />Staff advised that they had received no communication from anyone receiving mailed <br />notice of the meeting; or from any other sources. <br />Commissioners were in agreement that they were conflicted in making a determination in <br />this case. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.