Laserfiche WebLink
FROI°1 : LA�J OFFICES <br />FAX N0. :651-E,35-96�0 <br />C�ree�stein, N�abley &� Wall, �Z.� <br />FRANK 7, MADLEY <br />DANIEL G. WALL <br />Attornevs at T...�i4� <br />�d�� L J_ �0�4 <br />Neal Beets, City MRnager <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />�"ia �r�.ac _ �����r �� f�f�ow <br />�i•: ,4��frr���� ,�'u��ir�sr��� �t ���� �I,���tr�s}�'f'�5.�� <br />Dear Mr, Beets: <br />Date: 05/24/04 <br />Itr,�n: 6. <br />��4 �� ��+d��irmaa� <br />������} <br />May. 19 2094 �1�17PM P2 <br />300 R03EDAl.E S4. OFFICE EUILDINQ <br />2803 LINCOLN DRIVE <br />ROSEVILLE, MN 55113•1312 <br />(851)836-7696 <br />FAX (851) 636-9600 <br />dlel no. (651) 636-7888 <br />e-mall; +mF��e�ol+eam <br />I undeXSt�d t���� t� Cifiy Council will,reconsider the Albc�tson request for � minor subdivision <br />at its May 24 �neetillg, It is appropriate, for a, i��u1.�1E�e1' 4f good reasons, tllat it do so. Neither the <br />application nor the zoning ardinance have changed in auy respect whatsoever. The lot proposed <br />will still be exceed tl�.e required ��inimum total area by approximately 3,000 squar.e..f.eet. The <br />configuration of the proposed ].ot is naL different in �.ny meaningfiil way from scores of other <br />Rosevi,l�e lots approved over tlle years under thc same or a.ta.� �im�lar ordinance. The ereati.ot� of <br />the io� will,not c1���ge the "character of �1�� neighborhood" (whatever that means) in any mann.er <br />that is not botlt anticipated and implicit under tl�� zoning ordina�ice or as expressed in Roseville's <br />Comprehensive Pla�l. Any discussion as to "character of the neighborhood" issues �h��il;l be <br />taken up separately by the Plaiuling Commissi.an �;�d the Council in considering future policy <br />changes to m e n d or i�epe�l t[ry� minor subdivision ordinance. That discussivn s�lq�tld no� be part <br />of the decision to approve or deny this application.. <br />Mr. Pasel�Ice's planning repoi�t recommerids Council approval b�sed on the conditions listed in <br />Sections 3,1 through 3.11. As I have already stated, I do not believe tlie Council has the power to <br />deny variances or setback permits which.11�ve t�4t becn requcsted and which �t� iiqt before it. As <br />such, �11� condition set forth in paragraph 3,8 should be removed. Likewise, it is not Rppt�opri�te <br />tl��t tla�. Council condition approval of a. min.oa' subdivision by requiring placement o f a driveway <br />�itd submittal of � scaled site plan with a fr.rtarre bui..l.ding p���tnit, � set out in 3,� and �-a'�� These <br />conditions are wholly unTelAted to the minor subdivision ordinance and s�h.ot�ld be taken up only <br />at such time � a buil.dit�g pertnik i s�etu�lly applied for. The AI.relrtso��.s w��] not be applying for a <br />permit to build on �li � proposed l.o�t, <br />