2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Parcel'B". � The applicant must record the two lot minor subdivision survey within 60 days after the approval of the City Council. Public utility and drainage easements of 5 feet are required on the sides and rear lot line. b, For Parcel'B", the applicant must apply for and receive a Dale Court driveway access permit from the Roseville Public Works Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The existing looped driveway must be removed as part of the building permit, or the owner of Parcel B must provide an access easement for continued use of the driveway by the owner of Parcel A. It the looped drive is to remain, the access easement must be submitted as part of the building per�r�i� application. A grading plan, soil borings, and the survey ('B" above) illustrating lot lines and house setbacics must be submitted with the building permit application. � Within thirty (30) days after approval by the City Council, the applicant sha1� supply the final survey to the Cazn�u��ity Dcvclopment IJirector �ar 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 stirvey 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-�99b} Member White aslced if a variance could be requested by the future owner (yes). Is there a house plan to approve with this request? (No, not at this time). ._.,� Member Boerigter aslced for clarification of the conditions which would be placed on the future house He asked if the lot size variance was unusual in Roseville (no). Where would the access point (driveway) he located? (on Dale Court). What is the lot coverage? (less than 30%). Member White aslced if the new owner of the lot is almost required to get a variance (no) because the Planning Commission is validating the need for a variance by approving the lot. Member Woznialc aslced if the conditions prohibiting a variance could be stated. (cannot prohibit a future owner fxo�, requesting a variance). Member pohez�ty expressed concern that the next buyer will not understand the restriction of this lot. Member White asked if the �t�i i�:<his requirements to build within the setbacic triangle on the lot. Todd IIiif, representing the owner and family, explained the proposal to sell the lot. He said safety and sight line issues are not major concerns when turning on to Dale Street. --- The design of the home, reasonably sized, would be consistent with the neighborhood. He did hire an architect who tested a number of housing shapes. Member White described a similar home on Como Avenue. Member �a�cernan aslced for sewer and soil boring information on the site. Mt. Iliff explained RCAPF36S5(0822(}S}- Page 8 of 12