My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_910410
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
pm_910410
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:33:41 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/10/1991
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Paget 16 <br /> <br />April 10, 1991 <br /> <br />Goedeke indicated his concern about neighbors. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned what the need for the setback is. Shardlow <br />replied that setbacks are needed for aesthetic reasons to provide <br />green space to break up hard surfaces and also to provide an area <br />for snow storage. Keel added that setbacks are also needed to <br />prevent cars from being stored right up to the line and causing <br />problems to the neighbors and to minimize conflicts between <br />driveways. <br /> <br />DeBenedet pointed out that there were drainage issues also. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned how to establish today's situation. <br />Shardlow pointed out that the burden is on the applicant to prove <br />that they have a legal non-conforming driveway but that the <br />detail of the language needs to be worked out with the city <br />attorney. <br /> <br />stokes pointed out that the City may see more requests for twin <br />homes with shared driveways. Shardlow pointed out that the <br />proposed standard only affects the R-1 district and not the R-2 <br />district. <br /> <br />DeBenedet testified that there should be some minimum setback, <br />perhaps two feet. DeBenedet also said he had a problem rewarding <br />people for not abiding by the rules and that there may be dual <br />standards in some cases. <br /> <br />Shardlow stated that it is silly to process blanket minor <br />variances because a new standard has been established because so <br />many variances have been granted. <br /> <br />Harms pointed out that there is turnover in houses and that <br />people are not knowingly putting in non-conforming driveways in <br />many cases. <br /> <br />Shardlow pointed out that it is politically reasonable to <br />reestablish the standard and to eliminate inconsistent treatment. <br />Shardlow also testified that the practice of granting variances <br />based solely upon the signature approval of adjacent neighbors is <br />not appropriate. <br /> <br />MOTION <br /> <br />Wietecki moved and Roberts seconded to direct staff and the City <br />Attorney to prepare ordinance language approving all existing <br />driveways but requiring all conforming driveways and future <br />driveways to have a 5 foot setback from side property lines. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.