My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02493
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2400
>
pf_02493
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:54:38 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:33:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2493
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
1455 BURKE AVE W
Applicant
PETERSON, DOROTHY
Status
APPROVED
PIN
152923210016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 01-11-93 <br />ITEM NO.: 1&- <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br /> <br />Lq <br /> <br />Item Descr1ption: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Consent <br /> <br />Dorothy Peterson request for minor variance <br />at 1455 W. Burke Avenue. <br /> <br />Backaround: <br /> <br />1. City ordinances require that a 30 foot setback be maintained <br />on the street side of corner lots in residential districts. <br />City ordinances also state that non-conforming structures <br />cannot be expanded without a variance. <br /> <br />2. Dorothy Peterson has an existing dwelling with a 10 foot <br />street sideyard setback instead of the required 30 feet. <br /> <br />3. Dorothy Peterson wishes to construct a 15x16 foot family room <br />addition onto the rear of the house. The addition would meet <br />all setback requirements. <br /> <br />4. The Minor Variance Committee reviewed the request and <br />unanimously recommended approval of a variance. The <br />recommendation is based on the finding that a hardship exists <br />because the existing garage would have to be torn off the <br />house in order to meet the required setback. The Committee <br />also believed it was a reasonable request because the new <br />addition itself would meet all setback requirements. <br /> <br />5. All affected neighbors have indicated their approval of the <br />variance. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the variance based on the finding that no hardship <br />and/or practical difficulty exists. <br /> <br />2. Grant the variance based on the finding that there are <br />hardships and/or practical difficulties present on the site. <br /> <br />Policy Ob;ectives: <br /> <br />1. To insure that development occurs consistent with the city's <br />zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />2. To grant variances where hardships and/or practical <br />difficulties exist. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.