2001_0626_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.6 The following chart identify the Code infractions: Code Requirement Existing Condition Side Yard Setback 5 foot 1 foot Overall Area L140 sa. ft. L834 sa. ft Detached Accessory Building Size Limit Increased Maximum Size Maximum Total Surface Area 5.0 5.1 6.0 6.1 6.2 7.0 7.1 8.0 8.1 8.2 Proposed Condition 1 foot L834 sa. ft. Variance Necessar 4 foot 694 sa. ft 1057 s. f t. 1,234 sq. ft. 1,234 sq. ft. 177 sq. ft. 1 008 s. ft. CUP 1 234 s. ft. 1,234 sq. ft. 226 s. ft. 30% or 5,43s'�.ft. 5,546 sq. ft. 5,546 sq. ft. 114 sq. ft. POLICY & FISCAL IlVIPLICATION None. STAFF FINDINGS Because of the lack of information, the Staff is unable to thoroughly consider the ramifications of replacing the small accessory building. Without further information from the applicant, the Staff is not able to determine whether there are unique circumstances or hardships present to warrant granting the identified variances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings indicated in Section 6, Staff recommends that the request by Mr. Telstad for variances to Section 1004.O1A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit), 1004.0 lA4 (Requirements for Increasing Maximum Size), 1004.0 lA5 (Overall Area), 1004A1A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area), and 1004.O1A8 (Minimum Setbacks) of the Roseville City Code be denied. PUNNING COMMISSION ACTION At their meeting of June 13, 2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Telstad variance request. No citizens addressed the Commission and the applicant was absent from the hearing. The Commission recommended (6 to 0) denial of the Telstad request based on the findings in Section 6 of the project report dated June 13, 2001. PF33 10 RCA (062601) — Page 3 of 4