My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02046
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2000
>
pf_02046
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:38:02 PM
Creation date
12/10/2004 8:53:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2046
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
Address
1955 COUNTY ROAD B2 W
Applicant
RANCONE, MARK
Status
APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
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 />Mark Rancone, Case No. 2G(E <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDA~ION <br /> <br />Ther8 are three outstand.ir ~ issues related to cO!:lplianC"~ wi<:h the <br />o=iginaJ approval: <br /> <br />1) Consistent exterior finish. <br /> <br />2) Additional parking on the north side of the builcing. <br /> <br />3) EnclQsure of trash dumpsters. <br /> <br />The applicant t,as discussed thE first t...-o issues in his variance <br />request, but not tne third. <br /> <br /> <br />It is clear fro!:! the discussions prior t.o the 1950 rezoning, the <br />conditions attached to the Special Use Fe~it, and the wording of <br />the Zoning Code, that the City expec~ed a hi~her ~lality standard <br />of development in the B-4 District than for typical warehouse <br />uses. We believe the conditions attached to the Special Use F~rmit <br />f:J=- the conversion of this warehouse to a retail us~ were clear, <br />unarnbi~Jous, and reasonable. It is also ~ell established from <br />planning case law that economic considerations alone d~ not <br />constitute a hardship for thg qnsntinq of a variance. We stronqly <br />reco:ru::end denial of the va.riance request for the first issue, <br />related to the consistent eA-terior finish, and urge the Planning <br />COiU."1\issian to r~cor.lIx:end to the City Council that the applicant be <br />required to be~in the work immediately on ~oth the north an~ west <br />sides of the building or forfeit the bond amount. In the originai <br />approval, the requirement to complete this work. on th~ north sidE, <br />was not co"nec~ed to the need for future parking, and we do not <br />belie"e it needs to be connected now <br /> <br />On the issue of parking, our discussion~; with the n:.presentsti..oe <br />of REI and our visits to the site indicate tJ;ere :, not no~ a <br />parking problem, and so the City does not need to require the new <br />parKing lot tc be built at this time. We *i11 continue to monitor <br />the situation and report back to the Planning CQmmission if a <br />problem develops. <br /> <br />Trash handling ~as required tQ be handled within t:he building and <br />this is not now being done. If the ccndi~ion continues the Cit~ <br />can issu~ a citatiQn to the o~~er fer the violatiQn. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.