2000_0724_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3.3 The Reichenbach/Anderson garage currently is a single stall structure that lies approximately two feet into the neighboring (south) property. The removal of this garage would eliminate a pre- existing non-conforming use. 3.4 The Reichenbach/Anderson's have three vehicles, a boat, a motorcycle, and personal and lawn items they wish to store inside, especially in the winter months. 3.5 The proposed detached accessory structure and associated driveway/patio improvements and the existing house would create 3,141 square feet (41 %) of impervious area. 3.6 Because of the design of the house, placing a garage in the front and attached to the house is not feasible, even with the 50 foot front yard setback If this were feasible, no e�tended driveway and lot coverage variance would be necessary. Conditional Use Permit: 3.7 The proposed 832 square foot detached garage requires a conditional use permit (CUP) as per City Code Section 1004.O1A.12. Accessory structures are limited to 40% of the rear yard area of a lot or in this case 750 square feet. 3.8 Section 10 13.0 1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance lists the criteria reviewed when considering the issuance of a conditional use permit. The criteria are as follows: impact of parking; impact on parks, streets, and other public facilities; compatibility of site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; impact on the general public health, safety, and welfare; compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3.9 Staff has reviewed the development proposal with regard to the criteria in Section 10 13 .0 1.D of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance and concludes the proposal meets these criteria. Specifically, the proposed detached garage will not create additional traffic nor the need for additional public facilities. With proper e�terior 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 proj ect complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation as low density residential uses. 3.10 Conditions may be attached to the CUP that would mitigate additional impacts on adjacent properties including such items as increased setbacks from property lines, landscape screening, architectural color and design/materials details, drainage provisions, and limiting additional exterior storage. 4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Establishment of Variance Findings: 4.1 Staff recommends the City Council use an outline of the following possible findings to determine whether there is an "undue hardship" significant enough to approve the variance. 4.2 The hardship situation was (was not) created by the applicant or existed prior to the applicant.. . PF3236 RCA (072400) - Page 3 of 6