pm_030903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

additional traffic or the need for additional public facilities. With proper exterior building treatment, drainage, and landscaping, the building will not have an impact on surrounding property or values. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. In addition, the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as low-density residential uses. The City Planner reviewed the development proposal with regard to variance standards and determined that it is difficult to justify a departure from the strict application of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct the proposed detached 1,020 sq. ft. detached accessory building. However, there is justification for reducing the size of the replacement garage to a size closer to the 900 sq. ft rear yard maximum afforded the parcel. Specifically, a 32 foot by 30 foot (960 sq. ft.) detached accessory building designed with attic trusses would reduce overall impervious coverage by 60 sq. ft. and be nearer to the rear yard allowance, but more importantly, the design would still afford Mr. Davis a three car garage with ample interior storage area for the items indicated. Mr. Paschke advised he has received calls from neighbors supporting 1020 sq. ft.. He stated that staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit (garage size) in accordance with Section 1 004.01A4; approval of a 60 sq. ft. Variance (rear yard area) to Section 1004.01 A3; and a 470 sq. ft. Variance to Section 1004.01 A6 (impervious coverage) of the Roseville City Code for Michael Davis to allow the construction of a detached accessory building in the rear yard at 2730 Griggs Street, subject to the following conditions: a. A maximum detached accessory building size of 30 ft. by 32 ft. or 960 sq. ft. b. A maximum impervious coverage of 3,474 sq. ft. or 34.6%. c. A maximum accessory building height of 15 feet to the mid-point of the roof truss. d. The detached accessory building being limited to the storage of residential vehicles, lawn and garden items, seasonally used recreational vehicles or items (snowmobiles), household items, and a dog kennel. e. Submittal of a scaled site plan indicating existing and proposed conditions consistent with the above variance conditions. 1. Windows being placed on the north and south building wall to break-up the building wall. g. Gutters installed along the eaves of the detached accessory building and directed to the parcel's interior yard (northeast) to reduce impacts to the adjacent residential properties. h. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. Mr. Davis distributed a garage plan and explained the proposal. The old garage is a 1 % car garage, and then it was added to make it a 2 % car garage (shoddy work) which would be torn down. The hardship is that he brings a police work car home which must be secured in a neighborhood with many cut-through walkers and children. The dog kennel would be attached to the garage. The police dog has been teased. He asks for room for three cars, two snowmobiles and bench/dog house. He will store materials in the garage attic trusses. Member Traynor asked for clarification on the 30' x 32' garage (960 versus 1020). He asked staff what the rational was for reducing size of the garage [(1) mitigation to reduce yard coverage, (2) no more than size of garage for three vehicles plus storage]. Member Mulder asked if the kennel was considered an accessory building (no). Member Stone asked if a dog kennel has a cover, is it an accessory building (no, but it could be in a gray area). Thomas Paschke said the replacement proposed is near the same size as the existing garage plus kennels. A new slab will be created outside the proposed garage. There being no further public comment, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Stone, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit (960 sq. ft. garage size) based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ayes: 7, Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Mulder, Ipsen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: 0 Motion carried 7-0. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend approval of a 60 sq. ft. Variance to Section 1 004.01A3 (Detached Accessory Building Size Limit) of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2003. Ayes: 7, Bakeman, Peper, Stone, Mulder, Ipsen, Duncan, Traynor Nays: 0 Motion carried 7-0. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Bakeman, to recommend