pm_901107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday November 7, 1990 Page 11 mistake that was made in the 60's when the building was built. stokes asked whether homeowners within a 250 foot radius were notified. Jopke stated yes and presented a list. DeBenedet stated that since there is a 7 foot appurtance in back the variance isn't for five feet but for twelve feet. wietecki asked how far the building on the adjacent property is from the apartment. Palmer stated that it was much more than 30 feet. DeBenedet questioned how they can put a condition on the request so that any redevelopment doesn't receive the variance. Shardlow stated that none was needed since the variance is for this applicant only. stokes questioned whether the sideyard variance as granted. Shardlow replied that it had been. wietecki questioned how to address the engineering concerns. Shardlow stated that the city has attached conditions to variances but must take into consideration reasonableness. Berry questioned whether the discussed with the applicant. that they hadn't been. engineering conditions have been Palmer, Shardlow, and Keel replied DeBenedet stated that these considerations, though minor, need to be dealt with, however, current owners probably didn't know they existed. Keel summarized engineering concerns including: parking lot curbing, sidewalk, a sign not shown on site plan, and the fence setback. Palmer stated that he wants to address these engineering considerations. DeBenedet stated that the sidewalk dedication is current policy. Keel responded that it should be part of the variance process and the policy is to either build the sidewalk or put money into the pathways fund. Palmer stated that they weren't asking to do anything, they just wanted to rectify back lot setback. Palmer questioned whether it was appropriate to put these requirements on them. Johnson stated that in order to be consistent, the city must deal with