Laserfiche WebLink
Date: 05/24/04 <br />Itrr�n: 6. <br />� Minor Subdivision <br />(PF3556) <br />�F.p�•1 : LRW OFF ICES FRX NQ. : 651-636-5600 May. 19 2994 �1 � 17PM P2 <br />� ;-r������.jr�, N.�abley & �all, �,�,� <br />FPA1�� t. k��.��=Y �44 RU��C4kLE 6�7. 4�� ���I�al�l{i <br />4•�NI��, �. 14aL _ �d�3 LIM1I���N ��LIti'E <br />I?�BEvI�.LE, MF� dS117-F31� <br />i651185E-73$5 <br />Attorneys at L�� FAX (951) 636-8600 <br />WI�tOr'B dlrect dlal no. (651) 636-7800 <br />d•i�lif� *�lw9�eol�a-7 <br />f 11�r1�' � �, ���� <br />Neal Beets, City Managcr <br />City of.Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />�"ia f� �etter ��, al.low <br />��'; ,�� �er�r .�'rr����ti�isr�an af _�} �� A s�a�rr�l��'.�.��� <br />Dear Mr. Beets: <br />I undezst�d that �1ti- City Council will. reconsider the Albertson request for � minor subdivision <br />at its May 24 meeti.�.�g. It is appropriate, for a, a]�1:77��T 4f good reasons, tllat it do so. Neither the <br />application nor the zoning �:�ari� r1�� have changed in ni�v respect whatsoever. The lot p,rop4se� <br />will still be exceed tl�.e required minimum total area by approximately 3,000 squar.e..f.eet. T'he <br />configuration of the proposed l.at is not different in any meaningfiil way fronl scores o f ot1iel� <br />Rosev.i,lle lots approved over the years under thc sam� or ���� a.lmil�x ordinance. The c��eati.ot� of <br />the l.ot will. not c��a�zge the "character of �h� neighborhood" (whatever that means) in a.ny mann.er <br />tllat is not botil� �t.�ticipated and implicit under th,e zoning ordinance oz c�s expressed in Roseville's <br />Comprehensive Plan. Any discussion as to "character of tl�e neighborhood" issues shotild be <br />taken up separately by tlle Plaiuling Corrimis�sa.on and tlle Council in considering future policy <br />changes to amend or repeal �� minor subdivision ordinance. That discussion sl�.o�xld not be part <br />of the decision to approve or deny this applioatioi�., <br />Mr. �'asehke's planning repori: recornmerids Council approval b�scd on the conditions listed in <br />�eetions �,1 through 3.1 l. As I have already stated, I do not believe the Council has the power to <br />deny vari��ces or setback permits which 11ave t�qt becn rcqucsted and which �T¢ ilot before it. As <br />such, �]1� condition set forth in paragraph 3.$ should be removed. Likewise, it is not appropriate <br />that tia� Council condition approval of a min.or. subdivision by requiring plACement of a driveway <br />�i�d submittal o f� scaled site plan with a fr.rta�re building pei7nit, � set out in 3.9 and 3.10. These <br />conditions are wholly unrelated to the nlii�or subdivision ordinance and �h��l� be takeil up only <br />at such time �� a l�uil.dit�g permit is aetu�lly applied for. The Albetts�ns will �i.at be applying for a <br />permit to bui.ld on the proposed l�T, <br />