pf_03442 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Extract of Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of 12/04/02: c. Plannine File 3442: Request by Oscar Knudson for a Conditional Use Permit and an 86 square foot Variance to Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code to allow an existing accessory structure to remain on the premises (initially required to be removed with 2001 building permit). Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the report dated November 6, 2002. Oscar Knudson applied for a conditional use permit and a variance to Section 1004.01A4 (Requirements for Increased Maximum Size) of the Roseville City Code to allow a total of 1,094 square feet of detached accessory building square footage to remain on the premises. Mr. Knudson desires to retain a 230 square foot storage building that is currently attached to an existing 864 square foot detached accessory building. Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code allows up to 1,008 square feet of detached accessory building size under a conditional use permit (CUP). An amount over the 1,008 square feet requires a variance, which given Mr. Knudson desire to retain the 230 additional square feet of storage or a total of 1,094 square feet, requires both a CUP and variance. The Community Development Staff recommends the approval an 86 square foot variance to Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code and a conditional use permit for Oscar Knudson, 2749 Woodbridge Street, based on the comments and findings of Section 5 of the project report dated December 4, 2002 and subject to the following conditions: A. A maximum combined accessory building total size of 1,094. B. The elimination of the allowance of a 120 square foot garden shed (allowed under Section 1004.01A2) C. The use of the detached accessory buildings (garage) being limited to residential storage and use only. D. The conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if a building permit has not been issued (Section 1013.03). Member Traynor asked the City Planner if the condition in Section 6.1 d of the staff report is applicable to this case. The City Planner indicated it could be removed. Member Mulder asked the Planner how many accessory structures are allowed on a residential lot; the City Planner replied and a general discussion ensued. Member Stone asked ifthe impervious surface coverage was a concern (no). She asked if the structure was destroyed, could the applicant reconstruct (yes). Mr. Knudson said he was satisfied with the staff report. Bill Tersch, a neighboring property owner, said the improvements were very well accepted and he recommended approval. The building now stores all the outside equipment. There being no further comments, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Duncan, to recommend approval of a 86 square foot variance from Section 1004.01A4 of the Roseville City Code to allow Mr. Oscar