Laserfiche WebLink
<br />g. An approved (by staff) landscape plan that meets the satisfaction of the neighbors. <br /> <br />h. Drainage tiles and drainage plan as approved by staff. <br /> <br />i. Marketing must be to Roseville residents first and through Senior Linkage Program. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked for evidence of required easements and agreements at second Council meeting. He asked for <br />vertical and horizontal breaks in the building to break up the mass. <br /> <br />Member Traynor said he will vote in opposition because the condominiums are one story too tall. He hopes that <br />landscaping can help screen this project. His reservations relate to size of the building. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 1, Traynor <br />Motion carried 5-1. <br /> <br />c. Planning File 3532: Request by Dianne Peck for a VARIANCE to Section 1 004.02D4 of the Roseville City <br />Code to allow construction of a detached accessory building (garage) in the front yard at 2874 Dellwood <br />Street. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke present a verbal summary of the <br />staff report dated October 1, 2003. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke explained that Dianne Peck have submitted an application for a 16 foot variance to Section <br />1004.02D4 (Side Yard setback Adjacent a Public Street) to allow construction of a 24 foot by 26 foot (624 sq. ft.) <br />detached garage at 2874 Dellwood Street. There is not a garage on the site currently. A number of the homes have <br />garages set back from County C2 in a similar fashion. The homes were constructed from 1953 to 1955. He noted <br />the similarity to the Strub property variance. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman asked for clarification of the setback (front and corner side yard) both of which are 30 foot <br />setbacks from a street. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained neighbors support the project. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked what type of windows and landscaping are on the north (street) side and should it be required. <br /> <br />Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of the project report dated October 1 , 2003, staff <br />recommended approval of a 16 foot VARIANCE to Section 1 004.02D4 and a variance to Section 1004.01 A 7 of the <br />Roseville City Code for Dianne Peck to allow construction of a 624 sq. ft. detached accessory building at 2874 <br />Dellwood Street, subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />a. The detached accessory building being limited to a size of 24 feet by 26 feet or 624 square feet. The overhead <br />garage door shall face west and the driveway shall be "L" shaped. <br />b. The detached accessory building being located a minimum of 14 feet from the north property line adjacent to <br />County Road C2 and a minimum of 5 feet from the east property line. <br />c. The parcel being limited to an impervious coverage of 3,060 square feet. <br /> <br />d. The applicant or contractor locating the parcels property pins and developing a scaled site plan with dimensions <br />for structures and driveway, thus allowing the Community Development Department to verify the parcels <br />impervious coverage. <br />e. The removal of the existing shed in the northeast corner of the parcel. <br />f. No parking being allowed within the street side boulevard portion of the driveway. Off-street parking can occur on <br />the parcel, but must occur adjacent to the detached garage. <br />g. Gutters being placed on the accessory building and directed to the rear yard. <br />h. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and variance. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Traynor moved, second by Member Stone, to recommend approval (approval with <br />modifications or denial) of a 16 foot corner-side-yard setback variance to Section 1 004.02D4 and 1004.01A7 <br />(location) of the Roseville City Code for Dianne Peck, to allow construction of a detached accessory <br />building at 2874 Dellwood Street to within 14 feet of the north property line, based on the findings in <br />Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated October 1, 2003. <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />