2006_0925_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SEPTEMBER 6,2006 DRAFT MINUTES VARIANCE BOARD Ix, � LANNING �'��.� 3655 .Request by Todd Iliff for a VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, �100�l.01G (Residential tlimensional Requirements) to a11ow a principal st�uctuie encroachment into the required �Front yard setback adjacent to Da1e Cou��. Chair I3akcrnan opened the Public Hearing for Planning Fi1e 3655. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request of Charles We�eczki, owner of a vacant 5arcel at Da1e Court and Da1e Street, currently zoned R-1, Single-Family residential, and the Comprehensive P1an identified u� the Comprehensive P1an as Low Density Residential. Mr. Paschke noted that the vacant 1ot was split off from a larger parcel in August of 2005, which minor subdivision discussed the rationale for supporting the land division without any further variances; Planning Commission and City Council both supported the proposed triangular Minor Subdivision. Mr. Paschke advised that, since the creation of the parcel, the applicant had been unsuccessful in selling it due to the inability of six (� potential buyers to design a home and attached garage in a manner achieving required setbacks. Upon review of the 1ot and its buildable area, the applicant concludes that the allowance of an encroachment into the front yard for an attached garage or living area would afford a buyer greater design flexibility on the uniquely shaped parcel. Staff recommended approval of the request, by resolution, due to unique and extenuating circumstances, to a11ow a future horne�attached garage encroachment of up to fifteen feet (15� into the required front yard setback for the vacant parcel at Da1e Court and Da1e Street based on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 6, 2006. Applicant's Representative: Todd Iliff, son-in-law of property owners, Charles and Suzanne Welecski Mr. Iliff noted his relationship to the applicant, and his role in assisting them with the variance request and process. Mr. Iliff reviewed his narrative description of the property dated Ju1y 13, 2006, attached to the staff report dated September 6, 2006. In the narrative, Mr. Iliff reviewed the practical difficulties of the 1ot i�i accor�aoda�g typical and/or standard hozne design plans; reviewed a schematic of a possible footprint for a single-family home for the new 1ot; and the design's consistency with neighboring properties and sight lines. Discussion setbacks of adjoiz�i�� properties at thirty feet (30'} from the property lines; easement and utility locations; and staffs interpretation of the variance allowing for the encroachment of the principal structure or garage to provide more flexibility and to make the design more functional and aesthetically pleasing and so the garage didn't become a sole design feature with greater visibility than the main structure.