2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 1019106 IT'EM NO: 7. Department Approval: City Manager Approval: Agenda Section: JS �+�i Item Description: Continuation of the consideration to APPEAL the VARIANCE BOARD'S action to DENY the request by Charles Weleczl�i & Todd Iliff for a VARIANCE to �1004A1� (Front Yard Building Setback) to allow the construction of principal structure within the required front yard on the vacant lot at Dale Court and Dale Street (PF378� ). i _� BACKGROUND: ].� Charles Weleczki owns the vacant parcel at Dale Court and Dale Street. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property as Low Density Residential. 1. � The vacant lot was split off from a larger parcel in August of ZOpS. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the Minor Subdivision. L.? The vacant lot that was created as a result of the Minor Subdivision is irregular in shape (triangular). 1. �a Since the creation of the parcel, the applicant has been unsuccessful in selling the lot due to the inability of 6 potential buyers to design a home and attached garage that can be designed in a manner that achieves all required setbacks. L,.� On July 14,2006, the applicants (Charles Weleczl�i & Todd Ilif� applied for a variance allowing a front yard principal structure encroachment ranging from 2 to 15 feet into the — 30 foot front ��r�cl setback area. The applicant has concluded that the allowance of an = encroachment into the front yard for an attached garage (shown on proposed site plan) or — living area would afford a buyer greater design flexibility on the uniquely shaped parcel. � �, ? On September 6,2006 the Roseville Variance Board held the public hearingregarding the request by Charles Weleczl�i &Todd Iliff seel�ing a VARIANCE to $1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements —Front Yard Building Setback) of the City Code. The Variance Board concluded that a"hardship"was self created and that a deviation to the Code would not be characteristic of the adjacent neighborhood. The Variance Board voted 3 to 0 to deny the request. ].8 Section � 0�4.O�C states that the City Council acts and the Board of Adjustment in variance appeal actions and that an appeal must be acted upon by the City Council at their next regularly meeting. I.�+ On September 25,2006, the City Council considered an appeal of the Variance Board's denial of the requested variance. The City Council, by motion, continued the item until P��✓�+��Ci4_�pp�l_}�D9�D�[�egr-k •�'1'-.�