My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0724_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0724_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 4:25:30 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:50:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
Member Egli agreed with Member Mulder; the hardships are size and <br />2 length of driveway. Other arrangements could be made to put vehicles on <br />3 and store them outside. The proposed garage is too large. <br />4 <br />5 Member Olson stated the owner knew what the issues were, but that the <br />6 front setback creates the hardship because of the need for more driveway <br />� <br />pavement. <br />9 Chair Klausing asked if the hardship allows variance of up to 40% site <br />io coverage from the 30% coverage requirement. <br />�� <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />i5 <br />16 <br />17 <br />Member Mulder asked what the impervious surface would be with a 750 <br />s.f. garage (39.2%) including the patio area. <br />Member Olson asked if the 11% variance to impervious surface is all- <br />inclusive. <br />1s Motion: Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to <br />19 recommend approval of the variance from the required lot coverage of a <br />2o residential lot (30%) as requested by Robert Reichenback and Gail <br />21 Anderson based on the following: <br />22 <br />2s Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a physical <br />24 hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed the <br />25 permitted lot coverage; the hardship was not created by the <br />26 applicant; and, <br />27 <br />2s Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that there is a unique <br />29 physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, <br />so specifically the narrow shape of the lot and requiring an extended <br />3� length of driveway; and, <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />Whereas, there is not a reasonable alternative design that could be <br />accomplished without a variance; and, <br />Whereas, granting the variance would not significantly impact the <br />health, safety or general welfare of the community; and, <br />s9 Whereas, the Planning Commission has determined that the <br />4o granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br />4i the ordinance; and, <br />42 <br />4s Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the <br />44 Reichenbach/Anderson request to recommend approval of a <br />45 variance to increase the residential lot coverage from 30% to <br />46 39.5%. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.