Laserfiche WebLink
I Districts) for the pre-e�sting non-conforming principal structure allowing <br />2 future structural improvements to a line 10 feet from the Fairview Avenue <br />3 (east) properiy line near Fair-view Avenue; and <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />� <br />s <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />�6 <br />1s <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />2� <br />28 <br />29 <br />B. A 25 foot variance from Section 1004.02D4 (Dwelling Dimensions and <br />Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard, and Lot area Requirements in R-1 <br />Districts) allowing a five foot addition onto the pre-e�sting non-conforming <br />side wa11 of the attached garage bringing the structure to a line five feet from <br />the east property line near Fairview Avenue; and <br />C. A 23 foot variance from Section 703.04B4 (driveway setback from street <br />right-of-way) allowing the pre-e�sting non-conforming driveway to remain in <br />its current location, seven feet from the east properiy line, near Fait-view <br />Avenue. <br />Said recommended approvals sha11 have the following conditions: <br />L The overall dimension of the attached garage shall be limited to a ma�num <br />width of 17 feet or an eastward addition of five feet in garage width. <br />2. The proposed garage addition shall be set back a minimum of five feet from <br />the east (Fair-view comer street side) property line. <br />3. Any addition to the home or garage (southerly direction) shall not be located <br />closer than pre-existing setback of 10 feet from the east property. <br />4. All roof drainage created by the addition and e�sting attached garage must <br />be collected in gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way for the <br />applicant's property (east). <br />30 <br />31 Ayes: 5, Rhody, Olson, Duncan, Cunningham, Mulder <br />32 Nays: 0 <br />33 Motion carried. <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />This request will be forwarded to the Roseville City Council for action on March 12, 2001. <br />Member Mulder asked for clarification as to how any city action may be considered <br />differently for those hardships created by previous owners. New owners inherit the <br />problem when they buy the house. The chimney issue should not be considered a <br />hardship. It is not a portion of the pre-e�sting, non-conforming use determination. <br />