pf_03146 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 STAFF REVIEW OF APPEAL LETTER 4.1 Mr. Hauer-Lowe has indicated that he was never provided notice of the Setback Permit meeting. Staff maintains that notices were mailed to those residents directly impacted by the requested setback permit (2936 and 2948 Old Highway 8, and 2520 and 2529 Millwood Street), however, we cannot prove that the notices were actually mailed or received (A list of each mailing is not kept). Under the guidelines for notification, staff is required to mail out a notice to directly effected property owners, five (5) days prior to the hearing. Based on the ordinance requirements staff identifies those to be notified and creates a packet of information including the application, drawings, elevations, and an area map. A letter to the residents and a memorandum for DRC members is also created and appropriately attached. 4.2 Mr. Hauer-Lowe maintains that additional living space looks like it can be added behind a non-angled 2.5 stall garage, similar to the three newest houses in the area and without encroaching into the 10 foot side yard setback. The DRC reviewed the proposal floor plan and agreed with the location of the Yz bath and mudroom as being consistent with standard new construction. The proposed garage is 23 feet by 23 feet and includes a small area for storage or work area due to its offset. A typical double stall garage is 22 feet by 24 feet. 4.3 In reference to condition 10 "c" Mr. Hauer-Lowe maintains that the proposal does not improve the terrain and that the proposal should be required to provide a drainage plan. DRC members have completed a site inspection and have required a survey at the time of building permit application indicating the proposed grades of the site. Above it is indicated the condition 10c in not applicable. 4.4 In reference to condition 10 "i" Mr. Hauer-Lowe contends that the width ofthe proposed development is inconstant with the contiguous properties and of a greater mass. The DRC determined that given the mixed ages of structures generally located around 2940 Old Highway 8 there exists no standard size to judge this proposal. Further, the homes adjacent to the subject property include ramblers, split-levels and two stories. Given this fact, massing was not an issue for the DRC due to the addition being proposed onto a rambler. 4.5 Under condition 10 "j", the proposal should minimize vehicle impacts to adjacent properties not the subject property. 4.6 Mr. Haure-Lowe indicates again that a grading plan (10 "k") is missing from the submittal and that a statement from the Kaus's that they will provide gutters where needed is insufficient. The DRC determined that a grading plan was not necessary with the Setback Permit application and could be provided upon submittal with the building permit application. Further, there is no code that required gutters on a residential property. However, it is the policy of the DRC, when review development propos'als that encroach into setback areas, to suggest or require gutters on locations where potential exists for overland drainage to flow into a neighboring property. The drainage policy for Roseville is that all drainage must be contained within ones property, draining to an appropriate outlet. PF3146 - RCA (092799).doc Page 5 of 6