My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02581
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2500
>
pf_02581
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:57:35 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:50:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2581
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
2265 ST. STEPHENS ST.
Applicant
BURKE, THOMAS
Status
APPROVED
PIN
082923340018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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.6~ \ <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 6-14-93 <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: e ~J <br /> <br />Department <br /> <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda section: <br /> <br />~r!J <br /> <br />Consent <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Thomas Burkes request for a minor variance at <br />2265 st. Stephens street. <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />1. City Ordinances require that building structures be setback <br />10 feet from a side property line and 30 feet from front <br />property line. In the case of an attached garage, the front <br />yard setback for the garage maybe reduced to 27 feet. <br /> <br />2. Thomas Burke is proposing to construct a new two car attached <br />garage at his home at 2265 st. Stephens Street. currently <br />the house has a single car tuck under garage. To deal with a <br />steep grade and to save an existing mature oak tree Mr. Burke <br />is proposing to build the new garage to within 20 feet at the <br />front property l.ine. To accommodate the width of a two car <br />garage, he is seeking a 3 foot variance from the 10 foot <br />sideyard setback requirement. <br /> <br />3. The Minor Variance committee unanimously recommended approval <br />of the variance. The committee believed it was reasonable to <br />have a two car garage and that given the topography of the <br />lot, a hardship justifying the variances existed. <br /> <br />4. All affected adjacent property owners indicated their <br />approval of the proposed variance. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the variance based on the finding that no hardship or <br />practical difficulties exist on the site. <br /> <br />2. Grant the variance based on the finding that a hardship or <br />practical difficulty is present on the site. <br /> <br />Policy Obiective: <br /> <br />1. To insure that development occurs consistent with the City's <br />zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.