Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rear yards. The City Planner has determined that the original front yard, that adjacent to <br />Sextant Avenue would remain the front yard, though strictly applying the City Code <br />would conclude that with a comer lot the narrower frontage is the front lot line, thus the <br />front yard. Further complicating matters is the rear yard, which is the opposite of the <br />front yard. Here, the City Planner has determined that the rear lot line is the north <br />property line (opposite the front lot line) thus the rear yard. But again, the strict <br />application of the City Code would prescribe the east property line as the rear yard. <br />Lastly, the City Planner has determined that the interior side lot line is the east property <br />line, thus an interior side yard, and the west property line is determined to be the lot line <br />adjacent a public street or comer lot setback. The Community Development Staff has <br />determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />property not created by the landowner (change in type of lot and setback <br />application because of frontage road). <br /> <br />5.12 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: Although <br />a large attached garage is not a design feature of a 1950's horne, the neighboring parcel <br />to the north has a similar sized attached garage to that proposed by the City Planner. The <br />reduced size proposed by the City Planner 26 feet by 52 feet (1,344 sq. ft.) can be <br />designed similar to that originally proposed by Mr. Norris and compatible with the <br />existing home and neighborhood (hip roof, windows that minimize massing impacts, <br />brick exterior building material, comer lot design). The Community Development Staff <br />has determined that a 26 foot by 56 foot (1,352 sq. ft.) attached garage with the <br />suggested variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, <br />nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or <br />adjacent properties. <br /> <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />6.1 On December 3,2003 the Community Development Department recommended approval <br />of an 18 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02D4 (side yard adjacent a street) and a 9 <br />foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.02d5 (rear yard setback) of the Roseville City Code <br />for Daniel Norris to allow the construction of a an attached garage at 1547 Sextant <br />Avenue, based on the infomlation provided and the findings in Section 5 and conditions <br />of Section 6 of the proj ect report dated December 3, 2003. <br /> <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMSSION ACTION: <br /> <br />7.1 On December 3,2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing <br />regarding the Norris Variance request. No citizens were present to address the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />7.2 The Planning Commission asked questions of staff and the applicant pertaining to the two <br />proposals (applicant & staff). Specifically, the Conmlission was interested in knowing <br />the need for such an enormous attached garage and what the applicant felt were the <br />hardships. <br /> <br />PF3541 - ReA 121503 - Page 5 of7 <br />