pf_03422 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Extract of Draft Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of 9/4/02: 2 3 b. Planninl!: File 3422: Request by John Graham, 671 Skillman Avenue, for 4 a variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Yard Requirements - Front Yard 5 Setback) of the Roseville City Code to allow for the construction of a 6 home and garage to the front of the existing home. 7 8 Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke 9 provide a summary of the project report dated September 42002. 10 11 Mr. Paschke indicated John & Christie Graham submitted an application for a 12 12 foot variance to Section 1004.0lE (Setback Exception) to allow a living space 13 and garage addition to the front of his home for the creation of a master bedroom, 14 additional living room area and added depth to the attached garage. 15 16 This proposed addition to the existing principal structure places the structure at a 17 point 28 feet from the front property line or an encroachment of 12 feet into the 18 predominant setback and requires a variance to Section 1004.01E of the 19 Roseville City Code. 20 21 Thomas Paschke explained the interpretation of a "predominant" setback. 22 23 Staff recommended approval with conditions other than location of garage. 24 25 Thomas Paschke explained that adjacent property owner does not object to 26 garage extension to the front, and therefore staff would also support a front 27 extension. Changes to the garage rear would disrupt existing deck and other 28 construction. Thomas Paschke illustrated pictures of the house. 29 30 Chair Duncan explained the difference between a front two-foot and a l2-foot 31 setback. Chair Duncan asked for clarification of the trailer parked in the rear. 32 33 Mr. Graham said the staff report was acceptable. 34 35 Ted Boston, adjacent neighbor, stated he had no objection to the variance. 36 37 David Donahue, 679 Skillman, adjacent neighbor, stated that the uniform setback 38 on the front is more acceptable; should expand out to the rear of the structure; he 39 objects to more than allowed by Code in the front yard and prefers more front 40 yard open space. 41 42 There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. 43 44 Member Mulder expressed concern regarding detail of additions, especially in 45 area closer than 30 feet to the property line. Thomas Paschke illustrated the 46 building design. Member Mulder stated that a hardship is necessary. There are 47 options to expand to the rear, perhaps not as good. 48 49 Chair Duncan asked why not a 10- foot instead of a 12- foot addition to the front. 50