My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0925_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0925_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:22:04 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SEPTEMBER 6,2006 DRA.FT MINUTES <br />VARIANCE BOARD <br />Commissioner poherty was not supportive of the application; noting previous discussions <br />and his original skepticism at the time the Minor Subdivision was granted, and the <br />Commission's comments at that time related to development of the lot. Commissioner <br />Doherty addressed the pra�sletns with a reduced-length driz eway and cars parked on the <br />driveway creating safety issues and impediments to drivers' views of children playing in the <br />area; and other visibility issues it would create. Commissioner poherty noted that he may be <br />supportive of a smaller variance specific to a garage, but ten or fifteen feet (10-15'� was too <br />close for the entire structure and out of characterwith the neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that this was a difficult decision, but specifically recalled the <br />meetings when the Minor Subdivision was reluctantly granted by the Planning Commission, <br />and comments that the applicant shouldn't expect to receive any variances to get the <br />triangular lot to wark. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that a home could be made to <br />work on the lot, but it would not support a traditionally-designed home and would require <br />creativity. Commissioner Boerigter concurred with comments of the neighbors that the <br />plight of this landowner was due to the lot split, and had the existing home been moved to <br />make this lot larger, it would be buildable. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the owner had <br />elected not to move the existing structure, thus creating a lot they couldn't sell due to <br />prospective l�uilders/buyexs not being able to site a home. Commissioner Boerigter opined <br />that a fifteen foot (15') variance was too much, and without a specific design or plan to <br />consider further, justification of a variance would not be applicable; thus he could not <br />support the request. <br />Chair Sakernan, while posaibly considering a ten foot (1 Q') variance request; she could not <br />support this request. <br />MOTION <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member poherty, to DENY a Variance to <br />�10�4 of the Roseville City Code for Charles We�eczki, 1822 Dale Court (PF 37$1), to <br />allow a future home/attached garage encroachment into the required front yard <br />setback for the vacant parcel at Dale Court and Dale Street. <br />Ayes: 3 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carriec��request DENIED. <br />Chair Bakernan ad�ised the applicant of the appeal process timeframe. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.