My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
778
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
the same thing in other places. Her concern is if the City is setting a precedent with 50 <br />this or is this different enough to not be concerned. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained the City does not have a clear definition yet, or a clear way of 53 <br />distinguishing what is a shared driveway, what is a street, public or private, and 54 <br />certainly establishing a definition like that and incorporating that into the City Code 55 <br />will be a way to clarify that. The way that staff has looked at it so far is the width of 56 <br />this shared driveway satisfies the fire lane width minimum but does not conform to 57 <br />any street width. There have not been any concerns by Public Works, the Fire 58 <br />Department, Police Department, or any other City Departments about this driveway 59 <br />being less than the width of the street. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Member Schaffhausen asked if the Planning Commission needed to make some sort 62 <br />of definition regarding this or is staff working on one. 63 <br /> 64 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained a definition would be helpful, but staff really has not discussed it 65 <br />yet. 66 <br /> 67 <br />Member Pribyl indicated given the concerns regarding the access and screening at the 68 <br />neighbor’s property, she wondered about the thirty-foot utility easement on the other 69 <br />side of homes. Would this be required or was the developer able to make it work. 70 <br />She wondered if the easement could be twenty-five feet and move everything over to 71 <br />make more room for a landscape buffer on the one side as an option. 72 <br /> 73 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained that could be an option and staff could talk to the developer 74 <br />about it. He did not believe there is a minimum width for the easements. He thought 75 <br />it was partly driven by what the utility infrastructure is and how deep it is. He noted 76 <br />the shared driveway is on top of the utility easement as well so it is something that 77 <br />could be driven over by these homeowners or neighboring homeowners. 78 <br /> 79 <br />Member Pribyl indicated she was talking about the easement on the other side. 80 <br /> 81 <br />Chair Gitzen thought there was a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet. 82 <br /> 83 <br />Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct. 84 <br /> 85 <br />Member Pribyl asked if the homeowners could ask for a variance to deal with that. If 86 <br />the utilities were twenty-five feet that would be accommodating to the neighbors in 87 <br />the future. 88 <br /> 89 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained the location of the homes, like the driveway and everything else 90 <br />are not a part of the plat approval and if the lot lines are approved in the plat and the 91 <br />easements are also approved in the plat and easements are changed with homes 92 <br />shifting rearward in the future as it is developed remains an option. 93 <br /> 94 <br />Member McGehee was not sure it is a good policy to make policy definitions on the 95 <br />fly now. There was a policy and if it is insufficient then she was not sure if now is 96 <br />the right time to back pedal. She liked Member Pribyl’s suggestion for solutions to 97 <br />this, but she would like to have a firmer solution that what the City has at the moment 98 <br />RCA Attachment E <br />Page 2 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.