pm_810603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday, June 3, 1981 The June 3, 1981, regular meeting of the Roseville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman George Johnson at 7:30 P.M. Members present: Cushing, Dressler, Mastel, Matson, Miller, Rukavina and Johnson. Members absent: None. Others present: Council liaison Al Kehr, Howard Dahlgren of Howard Dahlgren Associates, Dave Drown and Jim Payne, staff Approval of Minutes Rukavina moved and Matson seconded, that the minutes of the meeting of May 6, 1981, be approved. Roll Call, Ayes: Cushing, Dressler, Mastel, Matson, Miller, Rukavina and Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1313 - John Newman request for variance to floor area ratio, and rear and side yard setback at 1990 Dellwood Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the applicant proposed to construct an addition to his home consisting primarily of an indoor swimming pool and ancillary facilities. He indicated that as presented, the plan called for a total cover- age on the lot of 31.5%. The ordinance establishes 30% as the maximum land coverage. He also explained that the proposed addition would be built to within 10 feet 7 inches of the rear yard and 20 feet 9 inches of the side yard, where 30 feet is normally required in both cases. He further indicated that the var- iance to rear and side yard setbacks would normally have been handled as a minor variance according to the ordinance, except that the floor area ratio could not be handled in this manner and, therefore, all variances were being brought to the Planning Commission and Council. Further, he noted that the house fronted on Dellwood which is legally considered the side yard. Therefore, what is legally considered the rear yard is treated by the applicant much like a side yard. As to the side yard setback of 20 feet 9 inches, this is the setback of the existing house and the addition would not come any closer to the side yard setback than the current structure. Mr. Dahlgren further pointed out that the applicants had received the written permission of the neighbors immediately effected by the addition in the manner required by the minor variance ordinance. Further, he indicated that the applicants had reduced the size of the addition to some extent from their original proposal but felt that further reduction would severely limit the substantial recreational facility that they are proposing. Discussion Mrs. Newman, the applicant, indicated that, while the difference between the 30% coverage and 31.5% coverage did not seem like a substantial amount, the additional 1.5% represented an area of approximately 175 square feet. This, she felt, would substantially reduce the utility of the recreation area.