2004_0614_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5. There are additional unaddressedquestions. a. When a property is constructed on Parcel "A" will it necessarily (due to lot size reduction) be of uniform two-story design? Is this feature itself non-conforming in either Code or neighborhood convention since the topography does not permit a walk-out rambler design? b. Would the trees separating Parcel "A" from the property at 1485 Transit be removed? Would this require a further variance? c. What precedent is being established by this ptoposal? Section 5.9 of the proposal states that "in the past five vears. the City h� �o�ed land division for a few double fronta�e parcels (such as Burke Street) but none that included variances." The reasonable question appears to be "what is the compelling distinction in this ptoposal which merits precedent-setting approval? d. Are sections 5.9 and 5.10 contradictory, or even accurate? Section 5.9 states that `�in the past five years the City has approved land divisions for a few double fiontage land parcels (such as Burke Street) but none that included variances" while Section 510 declares that the �p��osal "is not a de�arture fitom nast council actions." Section 510 continues bv assertinQ "Four parcel� have been created since the land was �latted. which do not meet the re�uirements of the current Code and are similar in sha� and size to the Ttudeau �ro�osal." If the four �ro�erties referenced are the four sti�ulated in Section 52. NONE re�uired variance in lot size from the current Code. On the basis of �resented "justification." the Trudeau re�uest is both inaccurate and difficultto su�ort. e. Most disturbing of all, is the apparentviolation of the quoted excerpt of State Statute 462.357 which says in part: "...the variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance..." The chatactet of the Roseville community is of gracious neighborhoods with higher-value, comfortable homes and lots. Through the years, this chatactet has been steadfastly maintained by residents and officials, and was among the positive motivations that both interested us and retains us as residents. There are other lots within the neighbothood with double &ontage similar to the Ttudeau proposal. If this proposal to create TWO sub-standard lots is approved, it opens the door by establishing a dangerous ptecedent to create other sub-standard lots. Such a trend makes a mockery of our Code, alters the character of our neighborhood (and ultimately the community) while negatively impacting communal and property values. The Roseville communal character is especially marked in the immediate neighborhood, where passers-by comment on its distinctive openness, attractiveness, and appeal. In light of the above. we strone]y��sa�nroval of the �nosal. Thank you for your considered review. Robert NL H 1485 Transit Avenue �� � ��_ �� ,:7.r ,, Margie H. Henry ;��` i'� . �� `