2007_0226_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 12,2007 Page 15 2 For the record, Ms. Simonson presented a Petition signed by neighbors, the � second one presented regarding this proposal. :� "As neighbors � the proposed NIINOR SUBDIVISION for 156 Woodlyn, we � wish to express our opposition. We do not believe the proposal meets the in- �, tention � City Code 17 03.06� (which states, "side lines cf lots shall be substan- � tially at right angles or radial to the street line.") We also do not believe waiting � until Parcel B requests a building permit s a prudent requirement. If this pro- � posal s approved, the driveway should be moved before replat s finalized. �� The new driveway w�71 also be very constricted near the garage. The property 1� line, required setback, and existing building do not leave an adequate ap- 11 proach. Finally, wllile the City Codes do not recognize neighborhood character, 1� we do believe that this issue continues to plague Roseville and should have t� been addressed years ago. Subdivisions cf this type do not fit witllin the inten- 1� tion cf the 11,000 square foot minimum lot size code and they negatively affect 1 �} neighborhoods." 1� ti'� Ms. Simonson and Mr. Roberts spoke in opposition to the requested Minor �� Subdivision; summarizing that the proposed subdivision didn't fit with the 1� original lot intentions. Ms. Simonson opined that the two lots did not appear �0 to be in keeping with the balance in size and rectangular lot appearance of � 1 surrounding properties. Ms. Simonson provided, from a mathematical �� standpoint, substantial and right angle interpretations and her definitions. �3 �� Mayor Klausing opined that it seemed, in general, when neighbors spoke to � 5 their opposition of or support for a particular proj ect, they worked backward ��, from their conclusion to provide rationale for their conclusion. Mayor �� Klausing noted the need for Councilmembers to apply uniform standards �� fairly not based on appearance. �� �� Councilmember Thlan personally questioned existing utilities and easement � 1 locations related to the proposed driveway location. �� �3 Mr. Roberts opined that the applicant appeared to be attempting to rational- ;�� ize definition of a right angle or radial standard to make construction on the �� two parcels fit and identified the root of neighborhood obj ection that this lot �� was not appropriate. �� �� Quentin Heckert, 3050 Woodbridge �� Mr. Heckert advised that he had previously sent his comments by e-mail, no � � copy was available.