050405_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 a.The elimination of one or both existing sheds from the premises if necessary 2 to meet the 3,389 sq. ft. of coverage, prior to the applicant receiving a 3 Certificate of Occupancy. 4 b.No other garden shed or detached accessory structure shall be allowed on the 5 premises. 6 c.The attached garage shall be set back a minimum of 12 feet from the front 7 yard property line adjacent to Grotto Street. 8 d.The attached garage shall be limited to 780 sq. ft. 9 e.Parking in front of the attached garage shall be prohibited. Should the 10 applicant desire to park in front of the attached garage the structure must be 11 shifted east 8 feet or the applicant must receive a Variance to Section 604.06 12 of the Roseville City Code from the City Council? 13 f.The principal structure (home) including the proposed addition and all paved 14 surfaces shall not exceed and shall be limited to 3,389 sq. ft. or 33.4%. 15 g.Drainage and roof gutters shall be installed to properly direct runoff away 16 from the adjoining property. 17 h.The variance shall expire within six months after the approval date (May 4, 18 2005) unless the applicant has been granted a building permit. 19 20 Member Pust asked if the garage (30x26) was normal. (It is slightly larger than a typical 21 two car garage with storage). 22 23 Member Boerigter asked if the shift of the garage (8 feet) should be changed (No). 24 25 Member Doherty asked for clarification regarding the existing garage and deck (to be 26 removed). 27 28 Thomas Paschke explained the neighborhood context, where there are numerous similar 29 setbacks and the impacts are similar. 30 31 Mr. Dachtera, 732 Grandview, explained that his proposal is at least one foot further from 32 the property line than neighbors. He had proposed one solid house and garage wall along 33 Grotto (unless required to set back 8 feet to allow for parking on the property rather than 34 on the boulevard). Chair Bakeman explained the staff report and the eight conditions (a 35 through h). 36 37 Member Boerigter explained that moving the garage further back may require more of a 38 lot coverage variance – currently proposed at 33.4%. Thomas Paschke explained the 39 process for calculation of the estimates for paved areas and will work with the applicant 40 on more detailed numbers. 41 42 Mr. Dachtera explained that the existing new deck will be retained. Member Bakeman 43 asked if the applicant will leave the garage as proposed. (Yes) Mr. Dachtera agreed to not 44 park in the driveway . because parking on the boulevard is permitted 45 46 Member Pust asked if neighbors supported the variance (no negative comments). Page 4 of 7