My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1976_1018_CC_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1976
>
1976_1018_CC_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 3:12:12 PM
Creation date
2/23/2012 2:34:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
October 7, 1976 <br />PLANNING REPORT <br />CASE NUt�IQER : <br />APPL I CA�JT : <br />L4CATION: <br />�CTTOrJ R�Q1JtS7�D: <br />PLANiVIN� CONSIDERATIONS: <br />1Q18-76 <br />Cour�try Prop�rt� Es <br />Northadest Corner of Co�t�ty Road C-2 <br />and Srtel i i ng Rver3ue S���ri ce �:nac� <br />Approval of lJar•ianc� to the Zor�ir�� <br />Code. <br />1. The applicant is the own�r �f �he Country Kitchen restaurant <br />recent�y constructed on the site. As you know, the Ci-�y Ordinance <br />currently requires the construction of sidewalks alor►g the righ�-- <br />of-way ��ith the deveiopment af new commercial ar industrial d�velop- <br />ments �n t�e City. This policy was established by �he Counci� in <br />recognition of the ul�irr�ate need for such walks, particularly a3ong <br />major thnroughfares where inany new commerciai and industrial <br />operatia�s are constructed. <br />2. The ap�licant here is requesting ta be allowed not to bui7d the <br />sidewaik. His reason is that �n this case, ihe service road is <br />within three feet of the front property 7ine. The Public Works <br />Director suggests tha� the applicant simply prflvide an easemen� <br />to the City a7ong the easter�y five feet of his property and <br />construct the sidewa�lc in that location. In many communities, <br />in business and industriai districts, such waiks are constructed <br />an private �roperty on an easement provided by the de�elopers as <br />requi red by the Ci ty. <br />3. You will note, that in this case, the se�backs of the closest <br />paric�ng space to the right-of-way iine along Snellir�g Rvenue �s <br />20 feet away. Thus, it wauld appear �o be no hardsh�p to pravide <br />the easement and canstruct ti�e tval�C in this location. <br />4. We fear the granting af variances to th�s requirer�ent for the <br />construction of sidewalks to set a preceden� wherein many applicants <br />will prefer to save the expense of bui1dinc� �.he walk. Since the <br />Ord�nance was changed, approximately a year and a i�al�F ago, every <br />commercial or industrial development has built the sittewa�k as <br />required_ Un�ess there is a substant�al hardship ihat can be <br />validated, it would appear in the best interests o� the City to <br />cansistently require the walks to be constructed unless there is a <br />severe practical hardship making i� unrealistic to do so. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.