My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0612_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0612_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 3:19:19 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:50:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Conditions may be attached <br />to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adjoining properties. <br />4.2 The Comprehensive Plan encourages reconstruction and upgrading of residential <br />structures (and neighborhood) throughout the community. Specifically, Section II <br />(Community Wide — General) and Section III (Residential) list Roseville's goals and <br />policies. (see attachment) <br />4.3 The City does not allow driveway access (slope) greater than 10%. Mr. Wieden's current <br />driveway slope is between 16% and 19%. Plan 2 would not eliminate or reduce the grade <br />of the slope. <br />4.4 The property is uniquely situated as a corner lot fronting Dale Street and Eldridge <br />Avenue. The garage and main access is off of Dale Street, while a secondary access was <br />installed along Eldridge Avenue to deal with the complexities and safety of accessing <br />Dale street in the winter and vehicle congestion periods. <br />4.5 The Dale Street Pathway Proj ect has triggered this variance request and the need to <br />provide a reasonable location for access to the site. <br />5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION & RECOMMENDATION <br />5. 1 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />Mr. Wieden's variance request. The adjacent property owner (west) addressed the <br />Commission supporting the request. However, Mr. Wieden addressed the Commission <br />indicating hesitancy to proceed through with the construction of the garage given the <br />constructions bids received. <br />5.2 The Planning Commission asked Mr. Wieden and Staff a number of questions regarding <br />the three proposals and had mixed concerns and findings regarding the selection of <br />option (Plan) 3. <br />5.3 The Planning Commission failed to recommend approval of the request on a 3— 4 vote. <br />6.0 SUGGESTED COUNCIL ACTION <br />6.1 It is recommended the City Council develop findings to determine whether there is an <br />"undue hardship" significant enough to recommend approval of a variance. The <br />following is a possible guide for these findings: <br />a. The hardship situation was not created by the applicant (Wieden) and existed <br />prior to the applicant ...(existing tree removal and safety issues with driveway <br />access to Dale Street) <br />PF3211 -RCA (061200) Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.