My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_1023_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_1023_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 11:00:13 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:51:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
242
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
existing non-conforming garages or to replace the existing non-conforming garages <br />4.0 POLICY REFERENCE <br />4.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage <br />reconstruction and upgrading of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the <br />community. <br />5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION/ESTABLISH FINDINGS <br />5.1 Staff reviewed the merits of the front yard setback variance to allow the Kenneys to <br />proceed with their detached garage replacement and study addition. Staff has concluded <br />that there are unique circumstances (trees, some slope, possible additional <br />hard/impervious surface, existing concrete driveways, and a prevailing 15 to 20 foot <br />detached garage setback along West Owasso) present on or effecting the parcel and <br />recommends approval of the request. <br />5.2 Staff suggests the Council use an outline of the following possible findings to determine <br />whether the Council finds an "undue hardship" significant enough to approve a variance. <br />a. The hardship situation was not (was) created by the applicant (Kenneys) or <br />existed prior to the applicant.. . <br />b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a <br />variance include . . . <br />The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include ... <br />d. The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance <br />include. . . <br />e. The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create <br />significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare <br />including. . . <br />f. Other findings deemed appropriate by the Council or Planning Commission.. . <br />6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br />On October 1 l, 2000, the Planning Commission held a hearing on this variance request, and <br />with findings, recommended approval of the proposed variance. Those present offered no <br />public comment and no written comment was received. The Commission discussed findings <br />for approval including: the impact of removal of the trees east of the present garage, slope, <br />possible additional hard/impervious surface, and a prevailing 15 to 20 foot detached garage <br />setback along West Owasso. A copy of the draft minutes extract from their meeting is <br />attached. <br />PF3264 — RCA (102300) Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.