Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br /> <br />6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, the <br />Community Development Staff recommends approval of a 783 square foot (11.2%) <br />VARIANCE to Section 1004.01A6 and a 3 foot side yard VARIANCE to Section <br />1004.02D5 and 703.04B9 of the Roseville City Code for Mark Koenig to allow the <br />construction of a detached accessory building in the rear yard and increased paved surface <br />area at 466 Hilltop Avenue, subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />A. The parcel being limited to an impervious coverage maximum of 2.783 SQuare <br />feet or 41.2%. <br /> <br />B. The detached garage being limited to a size not to exceed 22 feet by 24 feet or 528 <br />square feet. <br /> <br />C. The replaced and expanded driveway not exceeding (including existing driveway) <br />a total size of 1,188 square feet. <br /> <br />D. The storage slab behind the new garage not exceeding 96 sQuare feet. <br /> <br />E. The driveway, detached garage, and parking slab being setback a minimum <br />of 2 feet from the side yard (east) property line. <br /> <br />F. Gutters and downspouts must be installed along the eves of the detached <br />accessory building to direct runoff into the west and south portions of the yard. <br /> <br />G. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the <br />approved plans and variances. <br /> <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br /> <br />7.1 On August 6, 2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />the Koenig variance request. At the hearing not citizens addressed the Commission, but <br />the Commission did have questions of Staff and the Applicant. Specifically, the Planning <br />Commission asked about the location of the drive and accessory building and reasoning <br />behind its proposed location and not at the Code required five foot setback; why the <br />parking slab was not at the required five foot setback; and questions pertaining to the <br />Staff proposal versus the applicant's request. <br /> <br />7.2 Mr. Koenig addressed the Commission indicating that he wanted to minimize the rear <br />yard impact by keeping the driveway and garage as close to the east property line as <br />feasibly possible. He added that shifting either to the west would also create a difficulty <br />maneuvering into the garage and encroach into the existing patio. <br /> <br />PF3501 - ReA 081803 - Page 5 of 6 <br />