My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02347
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2300
>
pf_02347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:47:59 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:10:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2347
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
2991 CHATSWORTH ST N
Applicant
WALKER, ROBERT & ANNETTE
Status
APPROVED
PIN
022923230002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />J. 3~1 <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 7-08-91 <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: '& - 5 <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />{t5 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Consent <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Robert and Annette Walker request for a minor <br />variance at 2991 North Chatsworth Street. <br /> <br />Backqround: <br /> <br />1. City ordinances require that structures in residential have a <br />30 foot front yard setback, 30 foot rear yard setback and <br />attached garages have a 27 foot front yard setback. <br /> <br />2. Robert and Annette Walker are proposing to add 3 feet onto <br />the front of their existing garage and to add a family room <br />addition onto the rear of the garage at 2991 North Chatsworth <br />Street. The proposed addition onto the front of the garage <br />would have a 26 foot setback instead of the required 27 feet <br />and the family room addition would have an 11 foot rearyard <br />setback instead of the required 30 feet. The existing house <br />has a front yard setback of 29.5 feet instead of 30 feet. <br /> <br />3. The Minor Variance Committee unanimously recommended approval <br />of the variances. The Commi ttee fel t that there was a <br />hardship present because of the fact that the lot is oriented <br />such that the long dimension of the lot is abutting the <br />street instead of the narrow dimension. This results in a <br />very small depth of the lot which makes any expansion <br />impossible without a variance. The Committee also felt that <br />the rear of the lot abuts on public open space and not <br />another residential lot which helps reduce the impact of the <br />proposed addition. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the variance request based on there being no hardship <br />demonstrated. <br /> <br />2. Approve the variance as requested. <br /> <br />Policy Obiectives: <br /> <br />1. To insure that construction occurs in conformance with city <br />zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />2. To allow expansion of structures on single family residential <br />property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.