My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf08-042
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2008
>
pf08-042
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 12:11:24 PM
Creation date
6/21/2013 2:48:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
08-042
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
S.O STAFF COMMENT <br />5.1 Corner residential lots are required to be at least 100 feet in width and depth and have a <br />minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet; this parcel is only 75 feet wide and 10,150 <br />square feet in area. Were the lot to meet the minimum size requirements, the proposed <br />sunroom addition may well be permitted without needing special approvals. <br />5.2 Section 1004.016 (Residential Setbacks) of the City Code requires homes to be set back a <br />minimum of 30 feet from front property lines; with a legal nonconforming setback of 24 <br />feet, the existing house does not meet the requirement. The proposed sunroom would <br />encroach an additional 11 feet, standing 13 feet from the front property line. <br />5.3 Section 1004.01(A)6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the City Code limits impervious <br />surfaces to 30% of a residential property; the existing impervious surface covers 41.75% <br />of the lot and the proposed 154-square-foot sunroom would increase the coverage to <br />about 43.25% or 4,390 square feet. <br />5.4 A small deck is currently attached to the home where the sunroom is proposed to be, but <br />the sunroom would be considerably larger than what is essentially a glorified "Juliette" <br />balcony. The existing deck is served by a door from the pool addition and the proposed <br />sunroom would make use of this same door. <br />5.5 When Planning Division staff first discovered the 1981 variance, it seemed that a <br />sunroom could be constructed by essentially opening up the wall of the pool addition and <br />utilizing some of the existing interior space; because this appeared to provide an option <br />that complied with the requirements of the City Code, staff could not recommend the <br />approval of the variance. After further discussion with the applicant, however, it became <br />clear that any modifications to the pool addition would seriously compromise its <br />structural integrity and that opening up the existing space is therefore not an option. <br />5.6 The proposed sunroom would correspond to the upper level of the split-level house, <br />meaning that it would be supported on posts 4 feet above the ground; such construction is <br />usually found on the back of a house and is not so common in a front yard. An illustration <br />of this is included with this staff report as Attachment F. Because the addition would be <br />on the front of the house and encroaching farther into the standard setback, staff wants to <br />minimize the appearance of a sunroom-on-stilts by requiring some treatment of the space <br />below the enclosed room that makes it look like more of an integral addition, but that will <br />require additional correspondence between staff, the applicant, and the builder. <br />Comments from the public to Planning Division staff have also indicated some concern <br />about how the addition will look with the rest of the home. <br />5.7 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual <br />hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the <br />variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public <br />hearings> to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent <br />thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the <br />public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. " <br />5.8 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual properry under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />PF08-042 RVBA 110508 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />� �--� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.