2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeal Letter to the City ofRoseville September 15,2006 Page 2 f�i order to facilitate selling their homestead d 1822 North Dale Court, the Weleczlcis applied for arzl received a N�ior Subdivision approval in 2005 (Per Resol�ttioi�No. 10327) whereby the subject lot c�2 1828 No�-t�x Dale Court was split fro� the original homestead c�2 1822 Noah Dale Court. The Weleczkis then sold their homestead c� moved to their apa�tinent in late summer 2005. The Weleczkis have Ia� the subject lot listed with a real estate comparcy since the Minor Subdivision was approved in 2005. They have Ia� numerous interested pczrtie,s c� not less than six (6) purchase a�reer.�cn�� have been submitted by potential buyers. Presently, sever°al pcn°tie,s have expressed cm interest in building a home on the lot, but cn�e awaitingthe results ofthe Applicants'request fora variance. Unfortunately, due to the unique tyiangular shape of the subject lot, the buyers have l�rd difficulty in developing practical plcros for a home design that can be built on the site without the need for setback variances. This has resulted in all purchase agr°eements being cancelled or rescindec� To date, the Weleczlcis have been unable to sell the lot due to these practical difficultiesin inalcin� a design plan for a home without setback variances. The potential lot buyers have indicated that the cu�ent unique shape c�f the lot imposes practical difficulties on t�e home design such that a typical stczndczr°d home design plcm �•� not work. Potential buyers cn�e unable to design hallways and rooms on the unique triangular site s�ci�,�aa� the new home would be practically �se�,bie. The Weleezkis ca� not home builders or real estate developers c� to date they have merely sought to sell the lot to someone who can mcrize goa� use of it. However they have now concluded that in order to sell the lot and in order to a�Ercome the practical diff culties ofineeting all setback requirements on the unique triangular sh�zped lot, the best option is to se�� a setback variance so that a home with a traditional design plan cacd layout may be constructed on the lot. This zs not a case wher°e the Applicants tried to "sneak through the Minor Subdivision process by using subterfuge c� now ar� coining back after tlie fact to "sneak through" a variance that might have been denied Iz� they sought it c�2 the time of the Minor Subdivision. � Applicants submitted a home design schematic c�2 the ti��ae ofthe Minor Subdivisionapplication in .Iuly 2005, showing a�ozz�e design footprintthat would have required a variance. They did not wish to build a home c�2 that �i�xae, but only sought to show that it could be done. The Applicants wer°e up frant a;el straightfonvard in �he�� dealing with City Staffav,el did not seel� to hide the factthat there lii�ely would be a need fora variance on the lot c� some point. As mentioned above, the applicants ca� seeking a va�iance now due to the practical difficulties in selling the lot due to the practical t�ifi�c�lties o£ potential buyers to design a home on the site.