2004_0614_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

, � � �, I� � ��.� � � �� � � �� � �� RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY EDWARD TRUDEAU FOR MULTIPLE VARI '� '� 6 OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF HIS PRt��S �Y�CAL STREET (PF�571) TO: THOMAS PASCHKE FROM: ROBERT M. AND MARGIE H. HENRY, HOMEOWNERS,1485 TRANSIT AVE SiJB.JECT: RECOMMENDED D�SAPPROVAL DATE: 5/29/2004 CC: ROSEVILLE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION On the face of it, the request by Mr. Trudeau seems innocent enough as to merit fa�orable consideration. On closer examination, the request appears totally ]�,C� for supportive action by either the Roseville Planning Commission or the Roseville City CounciL Following are the reasons which should result in disapproval. THE PRESENT PROPOSAL 1. The requested variances are not minor. C�iinulatively, they are four in number (depth and lot size to two parcels). Moreover, the proposed reductions in Code requirements ate not insubstantial (Parcel "B" meets only 91% of Code, and Patcel "A" meets only 85%). In the administrarion of City Code, what limits are sufficiently severe as to require unmediate disqualification of vaiiance? 2. The four "supporting examples" in Section 5.2 of the Staff Comments/Findings do not � non- s�p��i� lot variance or exceution. As presented, they atgue against approval since all exceed lot size minimum standards. The correct square lot footage for each is as follows: a 2452 Simpson Street is 13,939 square feet b. 2445 Pascal Street is 14,374 square feet c. 2420 Simpson Street is 11,761 square feet d. 2419 Pascal Street is 11,761 square feet 3. Section 52 also loosely refers to changing topography and non-standard lot design as relevant for variance consideration. If, in fact, topography is a relevant criterion, the concave Simpson exposure at its least depth makes more glaring the proposed variance in depth for Parcel "A." 4. There may be additional loose wording m the proposaL The e�sting shed on the proposed dividing line of the two properties is said to be removed in the drawing of the Proposed Lot Split. Section 5.1 of the Staff Comments/Findings states the "property includes a garden shed that would be ��r � if the request is approved." If it is relocated, rather than removed, the reduced and non-conforming properiy size of Parcel `B" increases the risk of a cluttered appearance, which is ti�e f� for both parcels in this proposal.