My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02481
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02481
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:53:58 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:33:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2481
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
711 LOVELL AVE
Applicant
TRIEMERT, THOMAS
Status
APPROVED
PIN
112923410041
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />;A9J1 <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 10-12-92 <br />ITEM NO.: 1$ - ~ <br /> <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Consent <br /> <br />Thomas Triemart request for a minor variance <br />at 711 Lovell Avenue. <br /> <br />Backaround: <br /> <br />1. City ordinances require that driveways be setback 5 feet from <br />side property lines and sidewalks be setback two feet from <br />side property lines. <br /> <br />2. Thomas Triemart is proposing to expand a portion of his <br />existing driveway to have a 0 sideyard setback and to <br />construct a 3 foot concrete sidewalk which would also have a <br />o foot sideyard setback. <br /> <br />3. The Roseville Minor Variance Committee unanimously <br />recommended approval of a 5 foot sideyard setback variance <br />for the driveway but did not recommend the variance for a 2 <br />foot sidewalk setback variance. The committee believed there <br />was no reasonable alternative for the driveway expansion but <br />that there was an alternative to construct a 3 foot concrete <br />sidewalk with the proper 2 foot setback. The applicant <br />agreed to provide the proper 2 foot setback for the sidewalk. <br /> <br />4. The affected adjacent property owner approved the variance <br />request. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the variances based on the finding that no hardship or <br />practical difficulty exists. <br /> <br />2. Approve the variance based on a hardship or practical <br />difficulty being present on the site. <br /> <br />Policy Ob;ectives: <br /> <br />1. To insure that development occurs consistent with the City's <br />zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />2. To grant variances where hardships or practical difficulties <br />exist. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.