pf08-042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

S.O STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Corner residential lots are required to be at least 100 feet in width and depth and have a minimum lot area of 12,500 square feet; this parcel is only 75 feet wide and 10,150 square feet in area. Were the lot to meet the minimum size requirements, the proposed sunroom addition may well be permitted without needing special approvals. 5.2 Section 1004.016 (Residential Setbacks) of the City Code requires homes to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from front property lines; with a legal nonconforming setback of 24 feet, the existing house does not meet the requirement. The proposed sunroom would encroach an additional 11 feet, standing 13 feet from the front property line. 5.3 Section 1004.01(A)6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the City Code limits impervious surfaces to 30% of a residential property; the existing impervious surface covers 41.75% of the lot and the proposed 154-square-foot sunroom would increase the coverage to about 43.25% or 4,390 square feet. 5.4 A small deck is currently attached to the home where the sunroom is proposed to be, but the sunroom would be considerably larger than what is essentially a glorified "Juliette" balcony. The existing deck is served by a door from the pool addition and the proposed sunroom would make use of this same door. 5.5 When Planning Division staff first discovered the 1981 variance, it seemed that a sunroom could be constructed by essentially opening up the wall of the pool addition and utilizing some of the existing interior space; because this appeared to provide an option that complied with the requirements of the City Code, staff could not recommend the approval of the variance. After further discussion with the applicant, however, it became clear that any modifications to the pool addition would seriously compromise its structural integrity and that opening up the existing space is therefore not an option. 5.6 The proposed sunroom would correspond to the upper level of the split-level house, meaning that it would be supported on posts 4 feet above the ground; such construction is usually found on the back of a house and is not so common in a front yard. An illustration of this is included with this staff report as Attachment F. Because the addition would be on the front of the house and encroaching farther into the standard setback, staff wants to minimize the appearance of a sunroom-on-stilts by requiring some treatment of the space below the enclosed room that makes it look like more of an integral addition, but that will require additional correspondence between staff, the applicant, and the builder. Comments from the public to Planning Division staff have also indicated some concern about how the addition will look with the rest of the home. 5.7 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings> to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. " 5.8 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual properry under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the PF08-042 RVBA 110508 Page 2 of 4 � �--�