pm_030709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

There was no public comment offered. Chairman Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Stone moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of 377 square foot (or a 3.5% impervious surface coverage) VARIANCE to Section 1004.01A6 of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of a 480 square foot detached accessory building (storage building) in the rear yard at 1137 County Road B2, based on the findings of Section 5 and the conditions (with a replacement of condition "E" with "required boat and equipment storage in the garage of new accessory building) and necessary impervious area reductions of Section 6 of the project report dated July 9, 2003. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Motion carried: 4-1. d. Planning File 3495: Request by David Frigaard, 340 Maple Lane Court, for a 7 feet, 6 inch front yard setback VARIANCE to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Front Yard Setback) to allow the construction of a front entry porch. Chairman Troy Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the staff written report dated July 9, 2003. Mr. Paschke explained the proposal. David Frigaard has submitted a proposal to construct a covered entry porch onto his home 22 feet 6 inches from the front property line at 340 Maple Lane Court. The Frigaard home was constructed in 1964 and has a varying setback along the Maple Lane Court right-of-way of 31 feet 4 inches at the northwest corner and 24 feet at the nearest point to the cul-de-sac. The proposed improvement, a 16 foot by 9 foot covered entry porch, will replace brick paver patio and create a more formal entry to the home. The Frigaard home is undergoing a second story addition that places a new roof over a portion of the living room, which roof truss will also act as the porch roof. The proposed addition extends approximately 9 feet to the east from the existing living room wall and north approximately 16 feet from the existing front door wall. The existing home has a 24 foot setback from the front property line and is currently considered non-conforming. It is unclear after reviewing City records (1964) why the home was not required to be placed further to the south like the neighboring (east) structure, meeting the 30 foot minimum requirement. Perhaps the home was considered conforming due to it meeting (slightly exceeding at 31 '-4") the required 30 foot front yard setback along the western portion of the structure. In any event, the proposed addition does require a 7 foot 6 inch variance in order to be constructed. The Frigaard parcel is approximately 10,890 square feet in size, affording 3,267 square feet of impervious area. City Planner Paschke has calculated impervious surface coverage with the proposed addition to be 2,400 square feet, well below that afforded the parcel. Staff recommended approval of a 7 foot 6 inch VARIANCE to Section 1 004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code to allow construction of a 9 foot by 16 foot covered entry porch 349 Maple Lane Court, with conditions. There was no public comment offered. Chairman Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Peper moved, second by Member Traynor, to recommend approval of a 7 foot 6 inch front yard VARIANCE to Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Front Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for David Frigaard to allow construction of an entry porch on to the front of his home at 340 Maple Lane Court, based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated July 7, 2003. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Member Traynor noted that the front porch encroachment on this site has a unique cul-de-sac and the renovation is consistent with the home sin the neighborhood. Member Bakeman note that the open porch does not look or feel like an encroachment on this site.. e. Planning File 3470: General Residential Zoning Amendments - Definitions and R-1 through R-7 zoning revisions, City Code Section 1002 through Section 1007. Chairman Troy Duncan opened the hearing and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to provide a verbal summary of the staff written report and proposed ordinance dated July 9, 2003. Mr. Welsch explained the proposal. Based on Planning Commission comment and direction, the Staff has prepared revisions to the definitions and residential use ordinance (Sections 1002 and 1004 of the current code). Definitions (Section 1002) have been revised to be more current. The Residential Section (Section 1004) has been rewritten to