Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />9 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />1S <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <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 />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />Extract of Draft 1�Tinutes from Planning Commission meeting of 9/4/02: <br />b. Planning File 3422: Request by John Graham, 671 Skillman Avenue, for <br />a variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Yard Requirements — Front Yard <br />Setback) of the Roseville City Code to allow for the construction of a <br />home and garage to the front of the existing home. <br />Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke <br />provide a summary of the project report dated September 4 2002. <br />Mr. Paschke indicated John & Christie Graham submitted an application for a 12 <br />foot variance to Section 1004.O1E (Setback Exception) to allow a living space <br />and garage addition to the front of his home far the creation of a master bedroom, <br />additional living room area and added depth to the attached garage. <br />This proposed addition to the e�sting principal structure places the structure at a <br />point 28 feet from the front property line or an encroachment of 12 feet into the <br />predominant setback and requires a variance to Section 1004.O1E of the <br />Roseville City Code. <br />Thomas Paschke explained the interpretation of a"predominant" setback. <br />Staff recommended approval with conditions other than location of garage. <br />Thomas Paschke explained that adjacent properry owner does not object to <br />garage extension to the front, and therefore staff would also support a front <br />extension. Changes to the garage rear would disrupt e�sting deck and other <br />construction. Thomas Paschke illustrated pictures of the house. <br />Chair Duncan explained the difference between a front two-foot and a 12-foot <br />setback. Chair Duncan asked for clarification of the trailer parked in the rear. <br />Mr. Graham said the staff report was acceptable. <br />Ted Boston, adjacent neighbor, stated he had no objection to the variance. <br />David Donahue, 679 Slcilhnan, adjacent neighbor, stated that the uniform setback <br />on the front is more acceptable; should expand out to the rear of the structure; he <br />objects to more than allowed by Code in the front yard and prefers more front <br />yard open space. <br />There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. <br />Member Mulder expressed concern regarding detail of additions, especially in <br />area closer than 30 feet to the properry line. Thomas Paschke illustrated the <br />building design. Member Mulder stated that a hardship is necessary. There are <br />options to expand to the rear, perhaps not as good. <br />Chair Duncan asked why not a lo-foot instead of a 12-foot addition to the front. <br />