pm_060503 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 2006Page 7 of 9 building permit. Member Doherty inquired about who will live in the trailer and for how long. Only Mr. and Mrs. Alexander will live in the camper with occasional visits by an adult daughter. Construction of the new home is estimated at 4 months (enclosed in 4 weeks) and Mr. Alexander will do much of the interior work himself. Member Doherty asked about how the structures will be moved when the camper is in place. Mr. Alexander explained that the buildings will be moved via the driveway and the area to the east of the driveway. Member Boerigter asked why the camper isn’t required to be parked on a paved surface during the construction (as it would be normally). The City Planner explained that the nature of an IUP is such that the uses aren’t normally permitted and don’t need to conform to the Code. Any damage caused to the lawn during the interim use would be consistent with that caused in the normal course of construction. Member Boerigter asked about the reason for the location of the camper and whether a permit is needed to connect to electric service. The location is next to a utility pole and meets the 30-foot setback requirement and Mr. Alexander is in the process of obtaining the proper permit. Condition “C” should include an option (at the discretion of the City) to tap into the existing sewer line instead of utilizing the regularly-pumped tank. Member Boerigter inquires into the need for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy prior to moving people or furniture being moved back into the structure. The City Planner is unsure of what official permission is needed. As to the temporary storage unit also proposed on the site, the City Planner explained that such containers are common on construction sites and is therefore reasonable on this site. Member Boerigter asked what happens if winter comes before the construction is finished. The City Planner explained that Mr. Alexander would have to apply for an extension to the IUP. Member Boerigter asked about the size and type of storage container and conditions for its location. The container is a 10x20-foot metal shipping container, and the conditions will be modified to specify that its location will be consistent with the site plan included with the staff report. Member Roe inquired about vehicle parking and foot traffic between driveway and camper. Vehicles will be parked off-street and the logistics of the site prevent orientation of the trailer to put the door closer to the driveway. Member Boerigter asked about the potential for this IUP to set a precedent. The City Planner doesn’t believe that it’s likely to generate more requests like this than would normally arise. Member Doherty asked whether the new structure will be in the location of the existing buildings. The existing foundation will be removed and the new residence will have an attached garage. Community Development staff recommends approval of the request. Motion: Member Bakeman moved (subject to amended condition “C” and an additional condition related to locating the storage container according to the site plan in the staff report), second by Member Roe to recommend approval of, subject to the conditions (as amended) listed in Section 7 of the project report dated May 3, 2006. Member Wozniak recommended ending the sentence in condition “D” after “… December 31st. and inserting a subsequent sentence explaining that an extension to the IUP must be applied for 3- months prior to the IUP expiration date. Ayes: 6 http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0503.htm12/13/2006