My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0312_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2001
>
2001_0312_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 2:28:01 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:36:54 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.
/
87
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
2.5 Chart to review required variances as proposed: <br />Code Requirement Existing Condition Proposed Condition Variance Condition <br />Corner Side Yard Setback 30 feet 10 feet 5 feet 25 foot <br />Driveway Setback 30 feet 7 feet 7 feet 23 foot <br />3.0 STAFF CONIMENT <br />3.1 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the <br />ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance sha11 only occur <br />when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br />3.2 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the <br />property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed <br />by the official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />properiy not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the locality. <br />3.3 Conditions may be attached to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adjoining <br />properties. <br />3.4 Staff has worked with the Lundells on an alternative that works for them and reduces <br />encroachment as well as meets the hardship criteria. Staff has determined that a zero <br />setback variance does not meet the hardship test. Specifically, the existing garage could <br />be added to the south to create a double deep attached garage or an accessory building <br />could be constructed in the rear yard to accommodate additional vehicles and storage. <br />Staff also cannot support a 10 foot variance to the east properiy because of the limitations <br />such a structure may have on any future reconstruction, sidewalk or pathway plans for <br />Fair-view Avenue and because of site line issues. <br />3.5 Through continued efforts to determine whether an alternative other than a double deep <br />or detached accessory building could be supported, staff has concluded that an addition to <br />the existing attached garage of no more than five feet could be supported. The current <br />garage configuration, with a portion of the fireplace extending into the garage space, is an <br />impediment that reduces the function and storage capabilities of the garage. <br />3.6 A five-foot addition to the east would afford the Lundells additional room to comfortably <br />move around a stored vehicle as well as shelf and floor storage area without <br />compromising any future plans for Fair-view Avenue. Placement of a structure five feet <br />from a side comer yard property line has been approved in the past, when hardship has <br />been proven. <br />PF3288 — RCA (031201) Page 2 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.