Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: <br />The improvements proposed will create a home that fits well into is current <br />surroundings and one that has minimal impact on adjacent properties. The <br />Community Development Staff has determined that variances, if granted, <br />will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the <br />public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. <br /> <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, <br />staff recommends approval of a 52 square foot (<1 %) variance to Section 1004.01A6 and <br />two 26 foot variances to Section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code, to allow <br />construction of a home on property addressed as 458 South McCarrons Boulevard, <br />subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />A Setbacks established for this parcel of : Front Yard (W oodruff Avenue) - 4 feet; <br />Rear Yard or Street Side Yard (South McCarrons Boulevard) - 4 feet; Side Yard <br />(east) 5 feet. <br /> <br />B Both driveways being constructed with a paved, all weather surface. <br /> <br /> <br />C The deck being located a minimum of two feet from the north (South McCarrons <br />Boulevard) property line. <br /> <br />D The parcel being limited to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 3,531 <br />square feet. <br /> <br />E Submittal of a revised site & grading plan consistent with these conditions and <br />one that addresses proper management of storm water run-off. <br /> <br />F The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans <br />and variance. <br /> <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br /> <br />7.1 On December 4, 2002, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing <br />regarding the Van Sickle request. At this hearing an adjacent property owner addressed <br />the Commission indicting his support for the variances and the development of the <br />property. " <br /> <br />7.2 Mr. Van Sickle addressed the Commission further elaborating on the difficulties in <br />developing the parcel with a home and to seek information regarding responsibility for <br />the retaining wall located within the public right-of-way. Deb Bloom indicated that staff <br />would review the retaining wall issue and provide a response to Mr. Van Sickle. <br /> <br />PF3447 - ReA 121602 - Page 5 of6 <br />