My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01517
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1500-1599
>
pf_01517
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2024 2:40:11 PM
Creation date
2/16/2024 2:39:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1516
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Y <br />0 <br />PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: - <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />0 0 <br />11 July 1984 <br />1517-84 <br />Jeffrey Nielsen <br />West of Rice Street, Northerly of <br />Elmer Street <br />Approval of Lot Division <br />Variance to Parking Setback <br />1. This property in question is immediately north of the property referred to <br />in the previous application (Case Number 1516) on the part of Mr. Nielsen. <br />This land has 335 feet of frontage on Rice Street and is proposed *to be <br />divided in the center so as to create two lots, each with approximately <br />167 feet of frontage. This site is proposed to be developed with two <br />office structures. In this case, the parking area will be in front of the <br />structures running north -south on the west side of Rice Street. The two <br />parking lots are to be combined with cross easements for each, similar to <br />the previous proposal (except that in this case, each parking area.is on <br />the same lot as the building to be served. Copies of the site plan <br />attached illustrate this condition. <br />2. We suggest that the parking arrangement is appropriate inasmuch as it <br />makes the lot more efficient and provides two driveways (one for each lot) <br />which serve both parcels. Those will be constructed as a pair and though <br />they may ultimately be owned by separate parties, they will appear to be a <br />planned unit development with two structures on a single site. <br />3. Mr. Drown reports that this site has the same drainage concerns and should <br />be subject to the same conditions as the site to the south discussed in Case <br />Number 1516. The division could be approved subject to the engineering <br />conditions outlined. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.