Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the front yard, 17.73 feet from the principal structure and 40 feet from the front property <br />line for property located at 3036 Victoria Street, subject to the following conditions: <br />A The applicant using the lot's survey to supply the Building Department with a <br />scaled site plan with dimensions for detached accessory building and added <br />driveway for building permit application, thus allowing the Community <br />Development Department to verify the setbacks, driveway locations as per the <br />variance request, and size of the new structure. <br /> <br />B The detached accessory structure being setback a minimum of 40 feet from the <br />east (front yard) property line and 5 feet from the south (side yard) property line. <br /> <br />C The proposed detached accessory building being limited to a size not to exceed 24 <br />by 26 feet or 624 square feet. <br /> <br />D The accessory structure having the door of entry facing north to reduce visual <br />impact along Victoria Street. <br /> <br />E Gutters being installed on the detached accessory building (garage) where <br />appropriate, to properly direct drainage away from the adjacent (south) parcel. <br /> <br />F The review and approval of a building permit being consistent with the approved <br />plans and variance. The new building to match the existing building in color <br />and/or materials. <br /> <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br /> <br />7.1 On May 7,2002, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />the request by Mr. Berger. At the hearing Mr. Ralph Withowski, and Mr. George Reiling <br />Jr., spoke in opposition to the request. An e-mail from Mr. James Nolan, 3055 Victoria <br />Street, supported the request. <br /> <br />7.2 Mr. Berger as well as the City Planner answered specific questions from the Commission <br />regarding options, proposed impact, reasonableness and practicality of the request. Three <br />of the Planning Commissioners determined that the request could not meet the variance <br />criteria established by law, thus they would not support the request. The remaining two <br />Commissioners concluded that the request did meet the criteria established by law and <br />supported the request (minutes attached). <br /> <br />7.3 The Roseville Planning Commission voted (3-2) to recommend denial of the request <br />by Kenneth Berger, 3036 Victoria Street, based on the findings that options exist <br />that allow construction of a detached or attached garage that would not require a <br />variance. <br /> <br />PF3465 - ReA 06/02/03 Page 5 of 6 <br />