Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />to <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />1 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />3 <br />4 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />8 <br />9 <br />30 <br />31 <br />3 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />4 <br />43 <br />44 <br />Member Traynor asked if a condition could be added to require no parking in driveway <br />for safety purposes. Thomas Paschke explained that the City attempts to retain the fight- <br />of-way, but administering conditions and code is difficult. <br />Member Ipsen asked what applicant response was" (Opposed because of trees and <br />driveway removal). <br />Member Peper asked if trees along the west side would be removed* (None) <br />Mr. Gisvold said the City staff proposal would require tree removal. He said he was <br />opposed to the staff' proposal because it would abut windows, remove trees and create <br />backing problems. Mr. Gisvold said he has no plans to park in the boulevard area. <br />Member l akeman said he now has two cars and a boat. <br />There were no public comments offered. <br />Vice Chair Mulder closed the hearing and asked the Commission for comments. <br />Member Wakeman stated she was concerned with parking on the boulevard because of <br />safety-line of sight issues on adjoining property when backing out of driveway. <br />Vice Chair Mulder said the massive nature of the architecture may require windows <br />and/or other treatment to eliminate stark walls. <br />Vice Chair Mulder stated the City alternative creates as may problems. The applicant's <br />proposal works well, but parking in the boulevard should not be allowed. <br />Member Bakernan said she does not like either notion. <br />General discussion ensued regarding garage depth. <br />Lotion: Member ) akernan moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend <br />approval of a variance to Section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code for Noland <br />isvold, 970 Transit Avenue,, allowing the construction of an attached two stall garage <br />based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section G and a condition that no <br />parking on the driveway of the project report dated May 7, 2003. <br />Member leper stated he was opposed to prohibiting parking in the driveway. <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: <br />Motion carved, <br />