pm_030507 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion: Motion by Member Traynor, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend approval of a 5 foot side corner lot variance to Section 1004.01A7 (Location) and Section 1004.02D4 (Side Yard Setback Adjacent a Public Street) of the Roseville City Code for Manuel Gutierrez, to allow construction of a 30 foot wide by 24 foot deep (720 sq. ft.) detached accessory building (garage) at 431 Crescent Lane, based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated May 7,2003. Member Mulder asked if there are impervious surface issues (No issue when old garage and drive are removed). Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Member Peper left the meeting. e. Planning File 3469: Request by James Kueffer, 896 Parker Avenue, for a Variance to Section 1004.02 to allow a detached garage building closer to the front property line than the principle building and construction of a shared driveway along the side property line. Acting Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project report dated May 7,2003. Mr. Paschke explained that James Kueffer is requesting a 69 foot variance to Section 1 004.01A7 (Front Yard Setback Adjacent a Public Street) and Section 703.04B2 (Distance Between Driveways) to allow construction of a 576 square foot (24'x24') detached garage at 896 Parker Avenue and retain a portion of an existing shared driveway. Based on the information provided and the findings listed in the project report dated May 7, 2003, staff recommends approval of a 69 foot variance to Section 1004.01 A7 and allow a joint 75-foot long driveway to remain Section 703.04B2 of the Roseville City Code for James Kueffer to allow construction of a detached accessory building at 896 Parker Avenue, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant using the lot's survey and property pins and based on that, supplying a scaled site plan with dimensions for structures and driveway for building permit application, thus allowing the Community Development Department to verify the setbacks, driveway locations as per the variance request, and size of new structures. b. The detached accessory structure being set back a minimum of 10 feet from the west (side yard) property line and 69 feet from the Parker Avenue property line. c. The joint existing driveway, varying from 0 feet to 2 feet setback from the east property line, is allowed to remain to a point 75 feet south of the front property line along Parker Avenue. As part of the building permit application, Mr. Kueffer must provide and show a County Recorder's recorded copy of a perpetual access easement in favor of the adjoining property owner to the east for access use the joint driveway. d. The existing garage and driveway being removed within one year of the approval date of the variance. The slope and drainage must be redesigned and re-Iandscaped to reduce and/or retain surface run-off and roof drainage on the Kueffer lot by creating on site infiltration areas. e. A landscape plan being provided that illustrates how new plantings will visually soften and partially screen the proposed garage from the Parker Avenue frontage. f. The review and approval of a building permit being consistent with the approved plans and variance. The new building to match the existing building in color and/or materials. Member Traynor asked if the existing garage and drive will be removed. Jim Kueffer, 896 Parker, said the garage must come down because the drive and garage are on the property to the east. Vice Chair Mulder asked for new garage design details. Member Mulder closed the hearing since there were no further comments. Vice Chair Mulder asked if this was done because or by the applicant. He also expressed concern with the garage materials and design. Thomas Paschke explained that his minor subdivision case was previously discussed with the Council, agreeing to eliminate the driveway and garage behind the house. Member Bakeman asked how steps will be added. Vice Chair Mulder asked what the hardship is in this case. Staff must review structure plans. Motion: Member Traynor moved, seconded by Member Ipsen, to recommend approval (approval with