pf_03264 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.., 3404259 WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-l Districts) requires a front yard setback of30 feet. The Kenney existing detached garage lies 16.6 feet from the front yard property line adjacent to West McCarrons Boulevard; and, WHEREAS, the City of Roseville Comprehensive Plan and Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage reconstruction and upgrading residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the community, and WHEREAS, the Kenneys have indicated the existing 550 square foot detached garage is structurally unsound and in need of increased maintenance. Therefore, the Kinneys propose to use the same location and setback for the garage and add approximately 250 square feet to the structure along the east side for a study addition (total new structure 800 square feet); and, WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request on Wednesday, October 11,2000, and recommended approval (5-0) of the requested variance, with the following findings: Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that a strict application of the City Code would work an unusual hardship on the applicant; and Whereas, the hardship was not created by the applicant; and Whereas, the granting of the variance will not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation on Monday, October 23,2000; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council stipulates that Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-l Districts) requires a detached garage front yard setback of30 feet, and further, that a variance requires the applicant to prove physical hardship and to demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance, and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: 1. A portion of the replacement garage lies within the required front yard setback, while the new study area addition (a small portion of the garage) would meet the required setback. The parking for the garage would be on the south side of the building, not adjacent to the right-of-way. 2. Topography and trees in this area have created hardships in the past, requiring residents in the neighborhood to obtain variances to complete or replace existing non-conforming garages. ~ 2