My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03211
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2007 3:37:40 PM
Creation date
12/9/2004 6:52:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3211
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2125 DALE ST N
Applicant
Ken Wieden
Date Final City Council Action
5/22/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />1 Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2000: <br />2 <br />3 6e. Planning File 3211: A request by Kenneth Wieden for an 18.5 foot <br />4 Variance from Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard Requirements) of <br />5 the Roseville City Code to allow construction of an attached garage in <br />6 the required front yard setback on property located at 2125 Dale Street <br />7 North. <br />8 <br />9 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Tomas Pashke to <br />10 provide a summary of the project report dated May 10,2000. He <br />11 explained three alternative alignments for the garage and driveway. <br />12 <br />13 Thomas Paschke explained the Dale Street Pathway which will be <br />14 constructed in year 2000 and the impacts on the Wieden corner lot. There <br />15 are few alternatives. <br />16 <br />17 Staff recommended approval of the variance with findings to support the <br />18 variance. <br />19 <br />20 Member Mulder asked if Dale Street access and impervious surface is to <br />21 be removed when a new drive and garage is constructed (yes). <br />22 <br />23 Chair Klausing asked what mechanism is possible to enforce the <br />24 conditions of the variance (removal of driveway). Deb Bloom explained <br />25 the work with Mr. Wieden to date. <br />26 <br />27 Member Mulder stated that one condition of the variance should be <br />28 removal of drive and curb cut. <br />29 <br />30 Member Olson asked if the turnaround could be placed closer to the <br />31 house. Deb Bloom reported on the design and need for radious and slope <br />32 of drive. <br />33 <br />34 Member Wilke asked if Plan 2 improved the slope (16% would not meet <br />35 Code). He supported Plan 3 as the safest alternative. <br />36 <br />37 Member Egli asked if there are safety concerns with "sight triangle" on <br />38 alternative 3 (no sight problem). What will happen to the existing garage <br />39 on Dale Street? (Applicant undecided). <br />40 <br />41 Member Rhody asked if there was off-street parking on Eldridge. <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.