Laserfiche WebLink
� Member Tra}mor explained Lot A would be 9600 s.£, but that lot size limits the size of <br />� the house. Thomas Paschke explained that there are many single family lots (8,800) in <br />� Roseville, nearly 10% of the lots are undersized. <br />� Mr. Trudeau, applicant, said he had no comments. <br />i <br />#� Mary Knodle, 2493 Simpson, asked if other homes are in similar situations. Thomas <br />� Paschke explained similar non-conformity in the area and noted that the 30% impervious <br />I� surface requirement was not in place when most lots were built upon. Ms. Knodle asked <br />I I if the setbacks would be different for this lot. The setbacks would be 10 feet on the sides <br />]� and 30 feet in the front and rear. Ms. Knodle asked if the new owner could ask for future <br />]� <br />]� <br />1� <br />I �r <br />1� <br />L� <br />l� <br />�� <br />�1 <br />�� <br />�3 <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�- <br />�� <br />�� <br />variances regarding setbacks. (yes) <br />Chair Mulder stated he was not comfortable with this request because neither of the lots <br />meets the requirements. He discussed the recent requests for large garages, impervious <br />surface increases, etc. <br />Member Traynor said this would change the character of the neighborhood which has <br />larger lots and open space consistency. <br />Member Ipsen asked how common this has been in Roseville. (More in the past two <br />years than three years prior to that). <br />Member Blank explained that conditions could be attached. A tuck-under design could <br />be offered. <br />Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br />3+� MOTION: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to <br />3! recommend denial of a 16.6 foot lot depth and a 1,664 sq. ft. lot size Variance to <br />3� Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) for Parcel "A", and a <br />3� 10 foot lot depth and a 994 sq. ft. lot size Variance to Section 1004.016 <br />3� (Residential Dimensional Requirements) for Parcel "a"� because there is no <br />�� hardship, creating two substandard lots, and could be creating future hardships on <br />3� the site, and (Member Traynor) found that the project was inconsistentwith the <br />3 � neighborhood. <br />3� <br />�� <br />� <br />�] <br />�� <br />�3 <br />�-4 <br />�S <br />�6 <br />Ayes: 4 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />