My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0522_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0522_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:50:07 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:49:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
254
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
1 Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of Mav 10, 2000: <br />2 <br />3 6e. Planning File 3211: A request by Kenneth Wieden for an 18.5 foot <br />4 Variance from Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard Requirements) of <br />5 the Roseville City Code to allow construction of an attached garage in <br />6 the required front yard setback on property located at 2125 Dale Street <br />7 North. <br />8 <br />9 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested Tomas Pashke to <br />10 provide a summary of the project report dated May 10, 2000. He <br />11 explained three alternative alignments for the garage and driveway. <br />12 <br />13 Thomas Paschke explained the Dale Street Pathway which will be <br />14 constructed in year 2000 and the impacts on the Wieden comer lot. There <br />15 are few alternatives. <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />Staff recommended approval of the variance with findings to support the <br />variance. <br />Member Mulder asked if Dale Street access and impervious surface is to <br />be removed when a new drive and garage is constructed (yes). <br />23 Chair Klausing asked what mechanism is possible to enforce the <br />24 conditions of the variance (removal of driveway). Deb Bloom explained <br />25 the work with Mr. Wieden to date. <br />26 <br />27 Member Mulder stated that one condition of the variance should be <br />28 removal of drive and curb cut. <br />29 <br />3o Member Olson asked if the turnaround could be placed closer to the <br />31 house. Deb Bloom reported on the design and need for radious and slope <br />32 of drive. <br />33 <br />34 Member Wilke asked if Plan 2 improved the slope (16% would not meet <br />35 Code). He supported Plan 3 as the safest alternative. <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />Member Egli asked if there are safety concerns with "sight triangle" on <br />alternative 3(no sight problem). What will happen to the existing garage <br />on Dale Street? (Applicant undecided!. <br />Member Rhody asked if there was off-street parking on Eldridge. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.