1998_0608_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2.4 It is also the policy of the city of Roseville to issue minor variances when there is a hardship or practical difficulty, provided the property is located 'in an R-1 Single Family Residential District, and used for residential purposes. 2.5 section 1004.0 (D)(4)a city code, requires a front yard setback of no lass than 30 feat. 3,0 YLNOR VARIANCE COMMITTEE 3.1 The request for the variance included the required application form, a sketch of the property, a written statement from the applicant, and written approval from the adjacent property owner affected by the variance (James McCarthy at 916 County Road B-2 west and Lester Wachter at 934 County Road B-2 West). 3.2 The Minor Variance Committee reviewed this request on Monday, June 1, 1 998. Mr. and Mrs. Somers were present to review their proposal and answer questions. The 1 reject was discussed, including the physical hardship created by the location p of the house on the property, the water problems under the steps, and the overall improvements to the property. The city's policy of encouraging reinvestment and improvement of older homes within the community was also discussed. The applicants are very interested in upgrading their home and staying in Roseville; however, a variance is needed in order to undertake the improvements desired. In considering this request, the Minor Variance committee considered the residential reinvestment olicy of the city as well as the setback requirements outlined in the p City code. Alternatives for upgrading the home were discussed, with the Minor Mari ance committee concurring that the improvements as proposed are the best options from both a functional and aesthetic standpoint. 3.3 The Minor Variance committee unanimously recommended approval of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback to 25 feet for the purpose of constructing a garage addition and a front porch on an existing residence at 924 County Road B-2 West, based on the following findings: Section 1004.02(D)(4) requires a front yard setback of no less than 30 feet. 2. The location of the house on the property creates a physical hardship, while the water p roblems and desire to upgrade the property creates practical difficulties for the applicants. 3. It is the c oli of the City to encourage reinvestment in residential properties p throughout the community. 4. The p ro osed upgrades will be an improvement to the property. The p P improvements as proposed are the best option from both a functional and aesthetic standpoint. PF#3034-RCA(06/08/98) -Page 2 of 3