Laserfiche WebLink
4.2 The hardship situation was (was not) created by the applicant or existed prior to the <br /> applicant.. . <br /> 4.3 The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a <br /> variance include . . . <br /> 4.4 The economic issues that may (in part)justify a variance include . . . <br /> 4.5 The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance include.. . <br /> 4.6 The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create <br /> significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare including.. . <br /> 4.7 The access issues that preclude the normal/ordinary use of the site without a variance <br /> include.. . <br /> 4.8 Other physical findings deemed appropriate by the City Council.. . <br /> 5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> 5.1 On August 9, 2000,the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing <br /> regarding the Jenson variance request. No citizens were present to address the <br /> Commission on the variance request. Staff did indicate that four individuals associated <br /> with the sale and purchase of the adjacent (west) property were mailed a copy of the staff <br /> report and that no comments had been received. <br /> 5.2 The Planning Commission had general questions regarding the variance request. <br /> Specifically, the Commission asked Mr. Jenson questions regarding current site <br /> improvements and whether any options for the driveway were considered. Mr. Jenson <br /> responded that he and his wife anticipated using the existing attached garage, however, <br /> learned that once the ramp was extended there was no room to maneuver. He explained <br /> the issue regarding the driveway setback did not arise until attempting to get a permit. <br /> 5.3 The Planning Commission discussed whether the variance should allow a one-foot <br /> separation between the property line and the driveway or allow the driveway to be <br /> constructed up to the property line. After consideration on this matter, the Commission <br /> determined constructing up to the property line (five foot side yard setback variance) <br /> provided a wider driveway and could be designed to minimize any storm water run-off <br /> impacts. <br /> 5.4 The Planning Commission voted (5-O)to recommend approval of a five foot side yard <br /> setback variance for Ralph Jenson to allow a bituminous driveway to be constructed up to <br /> the west property line of property located at 201 McCarron's Street, subject to the <br /> following findings: <br /> PF3228 --RCA (082800) Page 3 of 5 <br />