2003_1215_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I d. The attached garage shall be limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), 3 household items. No home occupation will be allowed within the garage. 4 5 e. windows being placed on the north, south, and east building gall to break -up the 6 building wall (as per the applicant submittal). 7 8 f. Gutters installed along the eves of the attached garage to direct roof drainage 9 away from the adjacent residential property to the north. Specifically, drainage must be directed toward the street in a westerly direction. 12 g. A maximum driveway apron width within the public right -of- -way of 26 feet. 13 14 h, The parcel being limited to a maximum impervious coverage of 4,491 sq. ft. 15 16 i. No parking of vehicles on the driveway. All vehicles, trailers and other items 17 must be stored or parked within the attached garage. 18 19 .j. The existing driveway must be removed. 0 1 k. The review and approval of a' building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. 3 4 Chair Mulder closed the hearing. 25 b Motion: Chair Mulder moved, seconded by Member Wakeman, to recommend approval of a 2 7 foot variance (to allow for a 26 foot deep structure) to Section 1004.02D4 (Setback Adjacent a 8 Public Street) based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 (after removing item 9 "C" regarding building height) and noting that no product or inventory can be stored on the site of 30 the project report dated December 3, 2003. 31 32 Member 13akeman requested a clarification of the home occupation definition —discussion 33 ensued. Member Traynor said there are many business owners who bring trucks home. Member 34 Peper explained he could find no advantage to the reduction in size (by 8 feet). Chair Mulder 35 explained that there is no hardship on the rear yard setback, and that he was concerned about 36 consistency in future eases, but he explained that them is a city induced hardship (road) on the 39 side yard. 39 Ayes: 6 40 Nays :1 14 Motion carried. 6 -1 43 Motion: Chair Mulder moved, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend denial of a 9 foot 44 variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions — Rear Yard Setback) of the Roseville 45 City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report 46 dated December 3, 2003, because no hardship exists. The site can be put to a reasonable use, the 47 land owner is creating the circumstances for the variance, and such a variance could alter the 48 character of the neighborhood. 49 0 Ayes: 7 51 Days: o 52 Motion carried. 7 -0