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 />alteration of the first level of the home and deck to set within 17 <br />feet of the normal high water line of the Lake Josephine. <br />Section 18.100 of the Roseville Zoning Code requires that such <br />structures be set back 75 feet from the normal high water line. <br />Mr. Kadrie's home was built before enactment of the Zoning Code, <br />and as such, his house is a substandard use. Section 18.250 of the <br />Roseville Zoning Code states that lIany structural alteration or <br />addition to a substandard use which will increase the substandard <br />dimensions shall not be allowed. II <br />The City Council denied Mr. Kadrie's variance request as it <br />related to adding the deck past the kitchen extension. The Council <br />reasoned that to grant the variance would be to allow Mr. Kadrie to <br />increase the substandard dimensions of the structure in violation <br />of Section 18.250 of the Roseville Zoning Code. <br />ARGUMENT <br />As a substandard use the structure cannot be altered or <br />increased in dimensions. Roseville Zoning Code Section 18.250. <br />The kitchen addition extended the structure out to the point where <br />the deck originally was. Any additions beyond this point are an <br />increase in dimension and a violation of the zoning Code. <br />Mr. Kadrie argues that because the grade level patio extends to <br />within lS feet of the normal high water mark, that he can extend <br />the dimensions of the entire structure to the point of the patio. <br />This reasoning is flawed for two reasons. First, the at grade <br />level patio is not an appurtenant structure, and as such, is not an <br />appropriate measuring line. Second, even if it was the Code <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.