My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_9861
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
09xxx
>
9800
>
res_9861
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:41:15 AM
Creation date
12/2/2004 10:30:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
9861
Resolution Title
Approving Variances from Section 1004.02D5 (Swelling Dimensions and Appearances and Heights, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), and 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities) of the Roseville City Cod
Resolution Date Passed
1/22/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a <br />minimum of75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW); and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has indicated <br />support for the garage addition and concluded that the existing home given the circumstances and <br />warrants the approval of the proposed a variances; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on January 10,2001, conducted a public <br />hearing regarding the Vesterholt request and made the following findings: <br /> <br />l. Mr. Property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure <br />was constructed and improved many years before the current property owner purchased the <br />property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1957 with <br />municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was adopted <br />in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974. <br /> <br />2. Like many homes built prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the 699 Heinel <br />Circle structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the Ordinary <br />High Watermark. Requiring a setback of75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and <br />require removal of existing living area. <br /> <br />3. The new construction (garage addition) provide added livability, accessibility and space for <br />maneuvering vehicles, and the provision of accessible storage for Ms. Vesterholt who has a <br />disability. <br /> <br />4. The addition, though within the required ten-foot side yard setback, is consistent at five feet <br />with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood. <br /> <br />5. City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the original <br />Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the existing home infringes 15 feet within <br />the required front yard setback. With the additional eight foot requested encroachment into <br />the required setback the proposed garage will set within seven feet of the street right-of- <br />way line. The distance from the proposed addition to the street curb will be approximately <br />37 feet and will be visually consistent with 695 Heinel Circle. Within this 37 feet a vehicle <br />can be completely parked off of the street pavement. There appears to be no adverse <br />impacts to the surrounding properties. <br /> <br />6. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated approximately 30 feet from the property line, thus <br />allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to park a vehicle, <br />which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally (mostly adjacent residents <br />and mail delivery) traveled Heinel Circle. <br /> <br />7. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create any <br />significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's recommendation <br />on Monday, January 22, 2001; and <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.