pf_03252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.0 STAFF COMMENT & FINDINGS 3.1 Susan Bruhn applied for and the City held a hearing on a Setback Permit on August 3, 2000 to replace the porch enclosure. However, after verifying property lines, it was determined a variance was necessary. 3.2 Section 104.02D, Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-l Districts, requires all principal structures to be set back a minimum of30 feet from the rear property line. 3.3 Ms. Bruhn's was constructed in 1951 having the principal structure set back 84 feet from the front property line (adjacent to Cleveland Avenue) and 27 feet from the rear property line. The screen porch addition was constructed to be 17 feet from the rear property line. 3.4 Ms. Bruhn's exiting home and screen porch is considered pre-existing non-conforming uses that require variances in order to modify or replaced (Section 1011.02 Roseville City Code). 3.5 Ms. Bruhn purchased the home with the screened porch, not knowing their location did not conform to the Roseville City Code. 4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Staff recommends that the Commission use an outline of the following possible findings to determine whether there is an "undue hardship" significant enough to recommend approval of a variance by the City Council. 4.2 The physical hardship, defined as ... , was (was not) created by the applicant (Bruhn) or existed prior to the applicant. . . 4.3 The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a variance include ... 4.4 The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include... 4.5 The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance include... 4.6 The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare including... 4.7 Other findings deemed appropriate by the Planing Commission... PF3252 - RPCA (091300) Page 2 of3