Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 on the block. However, in the future other on the block may also be updated <br />2 requiring special considerations due to the unique front yard setback. The <br />3 variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or <br />4 general welfare, ofthe city or adjacent properties. <br />5 <br />6 Staff recommended approval with the following three conditions: <br />7 <br />8 Verification of the front (east) and side (north) property lines to confirm the <br />9 current principal structure (home and garage) setbacks. <br />10 <br />11 The design of the garage addition fits into the general character of the existing <br />12 home and is constructed of similar materials to that of the home. <br />13 <br />14 Provision of a drainage plan for the property at the time the building permit is <br />15 submitted. The drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by the Acting <br />16 Public Works Director. <br />17 <br />18 Thomas Paschke explained that some options are possible: put the garage in front, <br />19 expand to the back, or not have a garage. This type of development could occur <br />20 in many sites along this street in the future. <br />21 <br />22 Member Traynor asked if there are many one or two car garages along the street. <br />23 Mr. Conway said 8 of 24 homes along Victoria have single car garages. To <br />24 simply expand the existing garage still would not fit the site or the car. <br />25 <br />26 Member Olson asked if neighbors would approve. Mr. Conway said neighbors <br />27 were supportive with landscaping and cedar siding. Thomas Paschke explained <br />28 one neighbor called in opposition. Adjoining neighbors were supportive. <br />29 <br />30 Member Duncan asked if there were formal letters of opposition (none). <br />31 <br />32 Chair Rhody asked for questions and comments. There were none and the <br />33 hearing was closed. <br />34 <br />35 Motion: Member Duncan moved, second by Member Traynor, to recommend <br />36 approval of the request by John and Laurie Conway for a 14 foot variance to <br />37 Section 1004.01E of the Roseville City Code to allow a front yard setback <br />38 encroachment to a distance 24 feet from the front property line, based on the <br />39 findings in Section 3 and conditions of Section 4 of the project report dated June <br />40 13,2001. <br />41 <br />42 Ayes: Duncan, Traynor, Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Mulder, Wilke <br />43 Nays: None <br />44 Motion carried 7-0. <br />45 <br />