My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03212
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2007 3:38:35 PM
Creation date
12/9/2004 6:52:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3212
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
Address
1378 SANDHURST DR
Applicant
Tom Honigschmidt
Status
Approved
Date Final City Council Action
5/22/2000
Planning Files - Resolution #
9774
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />1 Excerpt of Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2000: <br />2 <br />3 6b. Planning File 3212: A request by Tim Honigschmidt for a <br />4 Condtional Use Permit to allow construction of a detached garage <br />5 and three season porch 100 square feet in size on property located <br />6 at 1378 Sandhurst Drive. <br />7 <br />8 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas <br />9 Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report of May 10, <br />10 2000. Paschke reviewed the dimensions of the proposed garage and three <br />11 season porch, replacing the existing garage. He noted that the driveway <br />12 will be modified to allow for access to the new garage. Staff recommended <br />13 approval. <br />14 <br />15 Chair Klausing asked for details of the setback permit process. <br />16 <br />17 Member Wilke asked for clarification regarding adjacent structures. (How <br />18 close?) <br />19 <br />20 Member Cunningham noted in project report, Section 4.2, why the <br />21 applicant cannot meet the 5' setback. <br />22 <br />23 Member Egli asked how many other nearby houses and garages would <br />24 exceed 40% coverage of required rear yard. Is this structure a garage, <br />25 work area and porch? Thomas Paschke noted that all of these are <br />26 considered as one accessory building. <br />27 <br />28 Member Olson asked if the house was as large as the proposed garage and <br />29 porch. Member Mulder noted the accessory building is larger than the <br />30 house footprint. <br />31 <br />32 Member Rhody also asked for clarity on placement and size. <br />33 <br />34 Mr. Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst Drive, explained the size of the <br />35 structure in relation to the house size. The building would store lawn and <br />36 garden equipment and two vehicles. There is no room to attach the porch <br />37 to the house. The porch is already attached to the existing garage. <br />38 <br />39 Member Cunningham asked why not meet the 5' setback? Mr. <br />40 Honigschmidt stated the garage would encroach on pavers, garden and <br />41 patio. Along the property line there is no useful space. The garage <br />42 extends 10 feet to the east. The neighbors have agreed to the setback as <br />43 proposed. <br />44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.