My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01567
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1500-1599
>
pf_01567
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2024 8:48:37 AM
Creation date
2/22/2024 8:48:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1567
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.
/
29
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 />CASE NUMBER: 1567-84 <br />APPLICANT: Kenneth Schwalbach page 2 <br />as a condition to the issuance of the variances proposed. The dedication <br />of additional right-of-way would also appear to require the movement of <br />the sign so as to place the sign in the 15 foot setback. In this case, it <br />would appear reasonable to allow the sign to be contiguous to the new <br />right-of-way line, rather than being set back the normally required 30 <br />feet from a right-of-way. <br />4. You will note that a new curb is proposed in the plan so encompass this <br />area of grass between the parking area and the street right-of-way. The <br />remainder of the lot has existing curbs, including a curb along the south <br />side which is approximately 10 feet from the south property line. Thus, <br />no variance is required on this side of the property for the parking <br />setback. <br />5. The existing 71500 square foot by ordinance should require 38 parking <br />spaces. The plan as drawn, you will note, indicates a total of 23 spaces. <br />The problem is that the placing of the new addition as proposed will have <br />a very disruptive influence on the placing of additional parking on the <br />property. There remains inadequate space south of the new addition to <br />park cars in this area. In any case, the six parking spaces shown on the <br />west side of the property, we feel, could be appropriately turned so as to <br />provide more convenient parking facing the existing building, rather than <br />toward the west as indicated. <br />The best solution, however, is if Mr. Schwalbach is able to purchase the <br />property to the south, that parking be placed along the new south property <br />line. This creates space for approximately 20 additional parking spaces. <br />Thus, the total parking would be increased to 43 spaces. Figuring the <br />entire structure, with the addition) as retail space requiring five spaces <br />per 1,000 square feet, the required parking is equal to 43 spaces. <br />Thus, the key to the solution for a good workable parking arrangement is <br />the acquisition of the additional land to the south. <br />6. Hopefully, as of the time of the Planning Commission and Council hearings, <br />Mr. Schwalbach will be able to inform us that the acquisition has taken <br />place. You will note too that the site plan indicates establishing the <br />southerly -most driveway as a one way egress. The engineering staff has <br />suggested, and we concur, that on this site that this may not be <br />necessary. The driveways are of ample width, and there is ample <br />circulation space in the parking lot on the east side of the building. <br />Perhaps it would be simpler to just leave both driveways as access and <br />egress, avoiding the confusion that sometimes occurs if they are <br />established as one way access and egress. It would also appear that the <br />parking shown in the center of the lot could be moved easterly to the new <br />curb line. <br />7. There would appear to be a bona fide hardship with respect to the <br />location of the existing structure and thus approval of the variances <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.