Laserfiche WebLink
1 Code. The proposed detached accessory structure at 648 sq. ft. is also is also well below <br />2 the house size estimated at 1,326 sq. ft. <br />3 <br /> <br />4 The staff recommends approval of a 17 foot Variance to Section 1004.016of the <br />5 Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 24 foot by 27 foot (648 sq. ft.) <br />6 detached accessory structure at 2216 Draper Avenue, based on the findings in Section 5 <br />7 and the following conditions: <br />8 <br /> <br />a. <br />9 The detached accessory structure (garage) shall be set back a minimum of <br />10 13 feet from the corner side yard (east) property line. <br />11 <br /> <br />b. <br />12 The detached accessory structure shall be set back a minimum of 6 feet <br />13 from the principal structure. <br />14 <br /> <br />c. <br />15 A scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating all existing conditions and <br />16 the proposed improvement must be submitted with the building permit <br />17 application. <br />18 <br /> <br />d. <br />19 Drainage and roof gutters shall be installed to direct runoff to the rear yard <br />20 or corner side yard and away from the adjoining (south) property. <br /> <br />e. <br />21 The detached accessory building and the screened porch addition must be <br />22 of the same design, materials, texture and\\or color as the principle <br />23 structure. <br />24 <br /> <br />f. <br />25 A landscape plan must be filed at the time of the building permit <br />26 application. The landscape plan must demonstrate how the garage and <br />27 driveway will be screened from the property to the south. The driveway <br />28 along Draper Avenue must be removed and the curb cut replaced with <br />29 curb at the time of construction of the new driveway. <br />30 <br /> <br />g. <br />31 The variance shall expire within six months after the approval date unless <br />32 that applicant has been granted a building permit. <br />33 <br />34 Member Doherty asked if a breezeway had been included in the calculations for the lot <br />35 coverage (no). Mr. Seabloom had no corrections to the staff report. <br />36 Dan Lehmann, 2100 Roselawn said he supported the project. <br />37 <br />38 Thomas Paschke explained that he had received phone messages both opposed to and <br />39 supporting the project, and had spoken with adjacent neighbor regarding windows and <br />40 softening the architecture on the south side. <br />41 <br />42 Mr. Seabloom will work with the staff on the windows and landscaping. <br />43 <br />44 Members Doherty and Traynor supported the proposal as consistent with development in <br />45 the neighborhood. <br />46 <br />Page 2 of 10 <br /> <br />