2006_0925_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeal Letter to the City of Roseville September 15,2006 Page 5 Moreover, the Applicants could have tried to play games with the subdivision of the lot area prior to the Minor Subdivision. They did not do so. They could have cut out an odd shaped pie piece or an elongated 1 foot strip along the curb or driveway on the 1822 Dale Court parcel, to achieve the additional the 892 square feet needed for the "corner lot" requirement (frankly, it was also arguable whether the 1828 Dale Court parcel was indeed a"corner lot" due to its unique location). Instead, based on the Applicants' discussions with the City Planner and City Staff this was not done. The Applicants played it straight and by the book. The lot split was straight forward and made common sense. City Staff asicect the Applicants to submit a drawing showing that a house could be built on the lot and the Applicants did by submitting a house plan footprint that would indeed have required a variance. (see the attached schematic drawing originally submitted with the Minor Subdivision Application in 2005). In fact the house plan submitted to City Staff at the �iine of the request for the Minor Subdivision included a plan essentialiy the same as is now being requested. APPLICANTS REQUEST VS. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Staff has recommended the approval of a fifteen (15') foot variance for the entire �ron� side of the lot facing Dale Court. The Variance Board had some concerns with the broad and open ended nature of this recommendation, which lil{ely led in part to a denial of the Applicants' request. City Staffs recommendation in many ways provides for a broader and a more wide ranging (albeit a more flexible one) variance than the original request by the Applicants. The original request by the Applicants is for up to a fifteen (15') foot setbacic variance at a single point along Dale Court at the Northwest corner of the proposed garage. The variance would diminish in length and amount until there was no variance required at the Southwest corner of the proposed garage. In addition, the Applicants requested a five foot variance along the entirety of the rear (East side) of the proposed structure along Dale Street. This would be only two and one half (2 '/2'} feet closer to Dale Street than the existing house at 1822 Dale Court (which is at 27 '/z' from the lot line along Dale Street), so this variance request would not be out of character with the existing neighboring structure. The Applicant's original request is not as intrusive toward Dale Court as City Staffs recommendation and spreads the variances slightly in both directions (West to Dale Court and East to Dale Street). Only a pie shaped piece of the proposed garage would extend into the setback (and thus require a variance) and a large portion of the garage would be well within the setback. The requested rear yard setback variance would be along the busy Dale Street and would �7�,j impede views, etc. The only land owner affected by this would be the owner of 1822 North Dale Court, t��e immediate neighbor to the South (the �or�er S�Je��czl�i homestead). As stated above, the rear �_�rc� setback