My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf08-042
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2008
>
pf08-042
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 12:11:24 PM
Creation date
6/21/2013 2:48:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
08-042
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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 />.. <br />Roseville Planning Comnission Minutes <br />Wednesday, June 3, 1981 <br />The June 3, 1981, regular meeting of the Roseville Planning Comnission was <br />called to order by Chairman George Johnson at 7:30 P.M. <br />Members present: Cushing, Dressler, Mastel, Matson, Miller, Rukavina and <br />Johnson. <br />Members absent: None. <br />Others present: Council liaison A1 Kehr, Howard Dahlgren of Howard Dahlgren <br />Associates, Dave Drown and Jim Payne, staff <br />Approval of Minutes <br />Rukavina moved and Matson seconded, that the minutes of the meeting of <br />May 6, 1981, be approved. Roll Call, I{yes: Cushing, Dressler, Mastel, <br />Matson, Miller, Rukavina and Johnson. Nays: None. <br />Planning File 1313 - John Newman request for variance to floor area ratio, <br />and rear and side yard setback at 1990 Dellwood <br />Presentation <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the applicant proposed to construct an addition <br />to his home consisting primarily of an indoor swimning pool and ancillary <br />facilities. He indicated that as presented, the plan called for a total cover- <br />age on the lot of 31.5%. The ordinance establishes 30% as the maximum land <br />coverage. He also explained that the proposed addition would be built to within <br />10 feet 7 inches of the rear yard and 20 feet 9 inches of the side yard, where <br />30 feet is normally required in both cases. He further indicated that the var- <br />iance to rear and side yard setbacks would nornially have been handled as a minor <br />variance according to the ordinance, except that the floor area ratia could not <br />be handled in this manner and, therefore, all variances were being brought to <br />the Planning Comnission and Council. Further, he noted that the house fronted <br />on Dellwood which is legally considered the side yard. Therefore, what is <br />legally considered the rear yard is treated by the applicant much like a side <br />yard. As to the side yard setback of 20 feet 9 inches, this is the setback of <br />the existing house and the addition would not come any closer to the side yard <br />setback than the current structure. <br />Mr. Dahlgren further pointed out that the applicants had received the written <br />permission of the neighbors irtmiediately effected by the addition in the manner <br />required by the minor variance ordinance. Further, he indicated that the <br />applicants had reduced the size of the addition to some extent from their <br />original proposal but felt that further reduction would severely limit the <br />substantial recreational facility that they are proposing. <br />Discussion <br />Mrs. Newman, the applicant, indicated that, while the difference between the <br />30% coverage and 31.5% coverage did not seem like a substantial amount, the <br />additional 1.5% represented an area of approximately 175 square feet. This, <br />she felt, would substantially reduce the utility of the recreation area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.