My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0522_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0522_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:50:07 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:49:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
254
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 Excer�t of Minutes, Planning Commission meetin� of Mav 10, 2000: <br />2 <br />3 6b. Plannin� File 3212: A request by Tim Honigschmidt for a <br />4 Condtional Use Permit to allow construction of a detached garage <br />5 and three season porch 100 square feet in size on property located <br />6 at 1378 Sandhurst Drive. <br />8 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas <br />9 Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report of May 10, <br />l0 2000. Paschke reviewed the dimensions of the proposed garage and three <br />11 season porch, replacing the existing garage. He noted that the driveway <br />12 will be modified to allow for access to the new garage. Staff recommended <br />13 approval. <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />Chair Klausing asked for details of the setback permit process. <br />Member Wilke asked for clarification regarding adjacent structures. (How <br />close?) <br />Member Cunningham noted in project report, Section 4.2, why the <br />applicant cannot meet the 5' setback. <br />23 Member Egli asked how many other nearby houses and garages would <br />24 exceed 40% coverage of required rear yard. Is this structure a garage, <br />25 work area and porch? Thomas Paschke noted that all of these are <br />26 considered as one accessory building. <br />27 <br />28 Member Olson asked if the house was as large as the proposed garage and <br />29 porch. Member Mulder noted the accessory building is larger than the <br />3o house footprint. <br />31 <br />32 Member Rhody also asked for clarity on placement and size. <br />33 <br />34 Mr. Honigschmidt,1378 Sandhurst Drive, explained the size of the <br />35 structure in relation to the house size. The building would store lawn and <br />36 garden equipment and two vehicles. There is no room to attach the porch <br />37 to the house. The porch is already attached to the existing garage. <br />38 <br />39 Member Cunningham asked w'_ 'v not meet the 5' setback? Mr. <br />4o Honigschmidt stated the garage would encroach on pavers, garden and <br />41 patio. Along the property line there is no useful space. The garage <br />42 extends 10 feet to the east. The neighbors have agreed to the setback as <br />43 proposed. <br />44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.