res_9866 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve variances to Sections 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts), 1016.16A (Structure Design Standards), 1016.22A1 (Non-Conformities), and 1016.26.B1 (Storm Water Management) of the Roseville City Code, regarding the application by Robert Witt, for property at 353 South Owasso Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: A. The redeveloped principal structure (home and attached garage) shall be limited to 2,204 square feet with a basement. B. The proposed principal structure shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the east and west property lines. C. The proposed principal structure shall be setback a minimum of 48 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark of Lake Owasso. D. All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's property. E. The parcel is limited to a maximum impervious area of3,305 square feet (38% of the parcel size). F. Because of the size of the new structure, existing accessory building, and the amount of impervious area, no other accessory building or tool shed may be permitted on the property . G. The existing accessory building shall be limited to the storage of personal belongings other than the storage of vehicles. H. The property owner must obtain and record a perpetual access agreement with the adjacent property owner. The City must review said agreement/easement prior to recording and will require verification said agreement/easement has been recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall provide the City with a landscape plan that addresses the interests of the Department of Natural Resources. The landscaping must be completed before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and the may require a landscape security (bond or letter-of-credit). The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Maschka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Klausing, Maschka, Mastel and Kysylyczyn and the following voted against the same: None WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4