pf08-006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Ms. Braunlin o�vns the residential property at 358 South McCarrons Boulevard. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residei�tial (LR) and a zoning classification of Single-Family Residence Disttict (R-1). S.O STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1004.15 (Residential Setbacks) of the Ciry Code requires a house to be set back 30 feet from a front property line. The Community Development Departinent coutinues to enforce a provision of the zonine ordinance (formerly in §] 004.01 DSa) that allowed an attached garage to project 3 feet into the required front yard when no living area exists above the garage, despite the fact that this provision was inadvertently omitted when the ordinance was �nore recently re-codified. 5.2 Becatise the proposed garage reconstruction does not include living area above, a 27-foot front yard setback would be enforced for the attached �arage. In light of this provision. the proposed garage would not encroach into tl�e required setbacl< because it would stand more than 29 feet from the front properry line. 5.3 Section ] 004.O1 A6 fimits iinpe�vious surface area on a typical residential propeiTy to 30% of the overall properiy area, but residential properties like this one in the Shorelaud M�nagement District (defined in ti 1016.05 of tl�e City Code) are limited to 25% impervious coverage. 5.4 The subject property was platted in the 1930's, well before the establishment of the cu�rent lot size requirements, and at 6,935 square feet is considerably smaller than most residei�tial lots in Roseville. Thc property I�as only 2,865 square fcet of impervious surface area, which covers 41 % of the property, and the proposed addition of 507 square feet would increase the impetvious coverage to 48.6%, due in large part to an expansion of the driveway to batter serve the garage and the creation of a sidewalk/patio on the eastern side ofthe garage. 5.5 According to the pro�osal, the gar�ge would not actually be enlarged, but it would be rebuilt in a way that makes it more useable. Because the drivew�y slopes toward the street, peivious paving would not be a viable option for reducing the increased rainwater runoff from the expanded driveway. In conversltions with the builder, however, it see�ns that Ms. Braimlin may be amenable to reducing tl�e size of the proposed patio; Community Development staff �vould be supportive of requiring a reduction in the size of the proposed sidewalk/patio on the eastern side of the house since the deck on thc roof of the garage �vould scrve the same recreational purpose �vhile not increasing the impervious coverage. Limiting the width of that sidewalk to the width of the stairs shown on the site plan would appear to eliminate about 120 square feet of impervious surface area, bringing the total coverage below 47%. 5.6 As a condition of approval of the requested variance, staff fi�om the Cominunity Development and Public Works departments recommends requirine the ap�licant to reduce storm water i�noff to levels that are consistent with 25%� impervious covera�e. This goes well beyond mitigating thc proposed ndditro�val impervious surface area, but would help to achieve some of the goals of the storm water management requirements. PF03-00( RV6A 030503 Pagc 2 of 4 � �