Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br /> <br />yard. <br /> <br />f. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the <br />approved plans and variances. <br /> <br />Mary Bakeman asked if the garage has doors on both the north and south sides <br />(yes). Storage of campers or trucks must be on paved surfaces. <br /> <br />Member Stone asked if this is a complete teardown and rebuild. She asked for <br />reasons to place the structure within the setback - why not shift the garage to the <br />west. Thomas Paschke said the drive back will be difficult. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked if the rear pad storage is set back five feet. (No, but could be <br />as a condition of the variance). <br /> <br />Member Stone noted that new garages have more pronounced overhang. Chair <br />Mulder noticed that water must be moved from this area by use of gutters. <br /> <br />Mr. Koenig, 466 Hilltop Avenue, explained the reason to move the garage east <br />was to keep more yard. The existing garage is set back one foot from the line. A <br />96 s.f. storage pad behind the garage is requested to have space for a camper. <br />Drainage runs to the south and southwest. The driver will back all the way to the <br />street. The neighbor to the east was supportive according to Mr. Koenig. <br /> <br />There was no public comment offered. Chairman Mulder closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Member Peper suggested changing A and D of Section 6.1 to allow a 96 s.f. pad. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Ipsen moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend <br />approval ofa _ square foot ( %) V ARlANCE to Section 1004.0lA6 <br />(Maximum Total Surface Area) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings <br />of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated August 6, <br />2003, with a 96 s.f. rear pad. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend <br />approval of a 3 foot variance to Section 1004.0lE7 (Dwelling Dimensions - Side <br />Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and <br />conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated August 6, 2003. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />