pm_030903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

tractor. Mr. Santanni added that his proposal is well below the 30% coverage (7%) and less than the 40% rear yard building (1,053 sq. ft.), but the home's footprint is too small at this time. Chair Duncan asked if 1,138 sq. ft. was accurate. The City Planner indicated that the numbers appeared to be accurate, adding that the information he used in the report was based on Mr. Santanni's submittal. The City Planner also indicated that Mr. Santanni could construct an accessory building that was up to the maximum 690 sq. ft. or in light of the desires of the applicant, the Planning Commission could support a 728 sq. ft. detached accessory building with a 30 sq. ft. variance. Member Stone asked for details of the survey calculations. Member Peper asked if there is reduced visual impact of the building; can it be a positive aspect of granting a variance. Mr. Santanni said currently he cannot park his vehicles in the garage. A garage of 864 sq. ft. would be fine, and he prefers not to request a conditional use permit. Member Traynor asked when the house was built (1951). There being no further public comment, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Traynor, to recommend denial because a hardship is not present and a 698 sq.ft. second garage can be built without a variance. Member Mulder said staff found a variance, but new larger housing and garage square footage numbers were provided by applicant, making a variance less necessary. Member Traynor said he did not see many large detached garages in the rear yards within the neighborhood. Ayes: 5, Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Mulder, Traynor Nays: None Abstain: 2, Duncan (Duncan did not agree with square footage calculation of two-story building), Ipsen Motion carried: 5-0-2 b. Planning File 3516: Request by Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, for a Variance to Section 1 012.02B (Certain Structures Not Considered Encroachments) & C (Fences) of the Roseville City Code to install and extend the height of and existing back yard fence to 9 feet. Chairman Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planning Thomas Paschke to present verbal summary of the staff report dated September 3, 2003. City Planner Thomas Paschke explained that Charles Anderson, 303 South Owasso Boulevard, seeks a Fence Height variance to Section 1 012.02B&C (Side or Rear Yard Only) of the Roseville City Code to extend the height of the existing back yard fence to 9 feet, including the new construction of 57 lineal feet south of the home. The proposed plan is to extend from the existing 5 foot fence to 9 feet in height. The code allows 6 feet 6 inches, therefore this proposal requires a two foot six inch variance to Section 1 012.02B3 (Side or Rear Yard Only). The need for the fence height is caused by deer (the property backs up to Ladyslipper Park). One mature apple tree and several Crab Apple trees (attached photo) have been killed or suffer extensive deer damage. Among other things destroyed on the property include (4) North Star cherry trees, (2) fruiting plums, and many (at least 25) roses. Charles Anderson submitted a proposal to extend two existing fence types north, south, and southeast of his home (4-board and wire) to 9 feet in height, of which, 57 feet (4-board type) will be of new construction located south of the home. Roughly 777 feet of existing 4-board and 3/4 inch T-post wire fence is located on the property. The purpose of the fence is to exclude deer from the yard and maintain landscaping aesthetics. The property has a zoning designation of R-1 (Single-Family Residential District) and a Comprehensive Land Use of LR (Low Density Residential). Fencing will be constructed using two methods. The first will use 9 feet in height sections of % inch galvanized pipe posts, with a % inch electrical conduit top rail and a % inch galvanized bottom rail. Fence fabric consisting of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh will be stretched from the top of the rail to the base rail (galvanized). Metal piping is much less visible than wood or vinyl fencing (much smaller than wood/vinyl). The second will use already existing 5 foot tall 4-board fencing to extend to 9 feet in height and use fence fabric that consists of concrete reinforcing 6 inch by 6 inch heavy gauged wire mesh which will stretch from the top of the 9 foot galvanized rail to the top of the 5 foot tall 4-board existing fence. Mr. Paschke explained that the staff recommends that this is a unique site and variance request and recommends