My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02576
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2500
>
pf_02576
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:57:26 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:50:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2576
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
1964 SIMPSON ST
Applicant
WREDE, ROBERT
Status
APPROVED
PIN
152923230066
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />J.6f/~ <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 6-14-93 <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: 6.-- b <br /> <br /> <br />Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />~a- <br /> <br />Consent <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Robert Wrede request for a minor variance at <br />1964 Simpson st. <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />1. City ordinances require that driveways be setback at least 5 <br />feet from side lot lines. This also applies to hard surfaced <br />areas extended to the side of a garage for storage. <br /> <br />2. Robert Wrede is proposing to install a new 8' addition to the <br />existing driveway. This garage is a single car garage with a <br />10 foot driveway. The purpose of the new stall is to provide <br />an additional parking stall and vehicle maneuvering on the <br />property. The proposed addition would be 3.5 feet from the <br />property line. This requires a 1.5 foot variance. <br /> <br />3. The Minor Variance Committee unanimously recommended approval <br />of the variance. It was the Committee's belief that with a <br />single car garage , it was reasonable to provide more off <br />street vehicle parking and maneuvering. <br /> <br />5. All affected adjacent property owners indicated their <br />approval of the proposed variance. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the variance based on the finding that no hardship or <br />practical difficulties exist on the site. <br /> <br />2. Grant the variance based on the finding that a hardship or <br />practical difficulty is present on the site. <br /> <br />Policy Objective: <br /> <br />1. To insure that development occurs consistent with the City's <br />zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />2. To grant variances where hardship and/or practical <br />difficulties exist. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />1. It is recommended that the city Council approve Robert <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.