My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02614
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2600
>
pf_02614
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:59:13 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:12:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2614
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1281 JOSEPHINE RD
Applicant
KADRIE, CHUCK
Status
APPROVED
PIN
032923120007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
<br />FUG 15 '94 1219: 42AM PET, ŒLL, CONY, JENSE <br /> <br />P.4/4 <br /> <br />Ms. Carolines Bell <br />August 11, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />1. ~ The at grade deck, which rests on the same footings as the house, <br />is clearly an appurtenance and. part oftbe structure under the <br />code. If the staff proposal is accepted, decks are not structures, <br />and thê city would be hard pressed to claim that decks are in any <br />way subject to the setback requirements of the code. <br /> <br />In addition to arguments based on the code itself, the city is <br />equitably estopped from denying the permit. In 1991 Mr. Kadrie <br />applied for the building permit which is presently at issue. This <br />permit contained architectural plans showing in clear detail the <br />proposed expansion of the kitchen, and the expansion of the first <br />floor deck. 'l'he permit applied for was granted. The city planner <br />now takes the position, in his report, that ... 'IBaaed on permit <br />·valuation and past approvals, it is clear that the building permit <br />was intended for the family room addition between the house and <br />free standing garage only". The staff may have no problem <br />asserting that detailed architectural drawings for the project do <br />not define the extent of the project, but we submit they will have <br />a very difficult time trying to persuade a finder of fact that the <br />drawings have no meaning. Mr. Kadrie has properly relied on the <br />permit and has expended substantial funds, as well as altered the <br />appearance! of his home as part of the construotion. We feel there <br />is a strong case for equitable estoppel, even if the city were to <br />find an answer to the problems of ignoring the relevant zoning <br />code. <br /> <br />~ <br />;¡p;. <br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Kadrie is incurring substantial loss while the city considers <br />the matter. The kitchen addition which the staff has no objection <br />to presently stands open to the elements because construction has <br />been stopped. The kitchen addition has a tongue and grove ceiling <br />whioh must be enclosed to avoid destruotion by the elements. We <br />believe the council should act immediately to reinstate the <br />building permit previously granted for a project which satisfies <br />all requirements of your zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />~ 1'-=-- <br /> <br />Dennis L. Smith <br /> <br />DLS/di <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />f,\dlabin\1.tt.r8\ka~ie"11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.