pf_03426 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

C. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: The improvements proposed (a large deviation from the Code and uncharacteristic) is consistent with how construction activity and building permits have been issued in the past for this neighborhood. Further, placing Mr. Strub's detached accessory structure adjacent his neighbors, creates a more aesthetically pleasing situation than requiring the structure to be located elsewhere on the parcel. The Community Development Staff has determined that this variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, staff recommends approval ofa 25 foot variance to Section 1004.02D4 and a variance to Section 602.06 of the Roseville City Code for Mike Strub to allow construction of a detached accessory building at 1275 Burke Street, subject to the following conditions: A The applicant locating the parcels property pins and developing a scaled site plan with dimensions for structures and driveway, thus allowing the Community Development Department to verify the parcels impervious coverage. B The parcel being limited to 3044 square feet of impervious coverage, which could require a reduction in the size of the proposed (528) detached accessory structure. C The detached accessory structure being setback a minimum of five feet from the north (side yard) property line and five feet from the Dellwood Street (west - comer street) property line. D No parking being allowed within the street side boulevard of the accessory structure (Sect. 602.06) E Drainage being designed to sheet flow to the south yard area. F The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and variance. 7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 7.1 On Wednesday, October 2,2002 the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Strub variance request. At the hearing the City Planner made a brief presentation detailing the specifics of the Strub variance request and answered questions by the Commission. The Commission also asked questions of the applicant regarding the proposed design and reasonableness of the request. All adjacent property owners indicated their support (via e-mail, telephone call, or letter) for the Strub variance request. PF3426 - ReA 102102 - Page 5 of 6