Laserfiche WebLink
i on the block. However, in the future other on the block may also be updated <br />2 requiring special considerations due to the unique front yard setback The <br />3 variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or <br />4 general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />Staff recommended approval with the following three conditions: <br />Verification of the front (east) and side (north) property lines to conf�irm the <br />current principal structure (home and garage) setbacks. <br />The design of the garage addition fits into the general character of the existing <br />home and is constructed of similar materials to that of the home. <br />14 Provision of a drainage plan for the property at the time the building permit is <br />15 submitted. The drainage plan must be reviewed and approved by the Acting <br />1 s Public Works Director. <br />1� <br />i8 Thomas Paschke explained that some options are possible: put the garage in front, <br />1 s expand to the back, or not have a garage. This type of development could occur <br />2o in many sites along this street in the future. <br />21 <br />22 Member Traynor asked if there are many one or two car garages along the street. <br />2 3 Mr. Conway said 8 of 24 homes along Victoria have single car garages. To <br />24 simply expand the e�sting garage still would not fit the site or the car. <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />Member Olson asked if neighbors would approve. Mr. Conway said neighbors <br />were supportive with landscaping and cedar siding. Thomas Paschke explained <br />one neighbor called in opposition. Adjoining neighbors were supportive. <br />Member Duncan asked if there were formal letters of opposition (none). <br />Chair Rhody asked for questions and comments. There were none and the <br />hearing was closed. <br />�Totion: Member Duncan moved, second by Member Traynor, to recommend <br />approval of the request by John and Laurie Conway for a 14 foot variance to <br />Section 1004.0 1 E of the Roseville City Code to allow a front yard setback <br />encroachment to a distance 24 feet from the front property line, based on the <br />findings in Section 3 and conditions of Section 4 of the project report dated June <br />13, 2001. <br />Ayes: Duncan, Traynor, Rhody, Olson, Cunningham, Mulder, Wilke <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried 7-0. <br />