My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_00542
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF001 - PF999
>
500-599
>
pf_00542
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2024 2:35:43 PM
Creation date
2/9/2016 12:35:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />� October i, 1969 <br />CAS E NO : <br />APPLICANI': <br />LOCATlO N: <br />ACT�ON REQUESTED: <br />'� <br />CJ <br />!- J <br />542-69 <br />John E. Boss <br />Nor#hwest Corner of Garden Avenus and Lexington <br />Avenue <br />Rezoning from "R-1" to "8-3" <br />PLANRlING C4NSIDERATIONS: <br />1. The proRerfiy in question is immediately north of a B-2 District, the norfherly <br />portion of wh ich was original ly deve�loped fDr a retai l shoe sfore . Under <br />normal conditions, one would anfiicipate the property ir� quest�on to be devel�p�d <br />for some sort of transifiional use between the existing �ommercia[ area and the <br />single family residential ereas to the north and west. Such transitional uses <br />mighi• normally include an office building� clinic, mult��le dwe!ling, ar perhaps <br />a garclen store. In this case, the proposed use i'��fhcit.df a�Bridgemari ' :. <br />restaurant with 125 person seating capacityo We have reviewed the propose� <br />sit� plan with the applicant on several occasior�s w.i:t�i. fhe intent of making ifi <br />as good as possible should the application be approved, The site plan conforms <br />with the Village re�ulations and would in our opinion, work c�ffectively as a <br />restaurant site. There is a sign proposed on the site plan which does not meet <br />the 3Q foot setback requirements. It would appear possible to relocate the <br />sign in a conforming location. The question is one of whether or not the proposed <br />�se would �ffective(y function as the transitional fur�ction suggested. �t would <br />appear from the number of signatures obtained in the area, that a number of <br />persons believe this to be true. <br />2. You will note by the sketch at the left that the structure is proposed to be <br />located on the northerly part of the property. The land between the structure <br />and the north prdperty line would be landscdped and would not be occupisd <br />by parking or services. Access to the site is proposed away from the interssction <br />of Garden and Larpent�ur avoiding any undue traffic problem. The applicant <br />proposes a 5 foot high redwood fence around the property to the west and the <br />north . <br />3. The applicant's development plan provides 44 parking spaces and conforms <br />tn the ordinance requirement, except that a sign is praposed less than the 30 <br />foot minimum distance required from the right-of-way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.