My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03140
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03140
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:44:37 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:53:18 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
329
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 />1.9 <br /> <br />City Code Section 10 16.22C states that deck expansions on non-conforming <br />structures may be allowed if: the house was built prior to March 27, 1974; no <br />reasonable alternative deck location could be found; and, the proposed deck <br />extension would not exceed 15% of the existing structure setback from the lake or <br />be no closer than 30 feet, whichever is the greater setback. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />1.10 In the Kadrie case, 15% of the existing setback distance is 5.55 feet closer to the <br />water for a deck setback of 31.45 feet. (The addition and the deck variance <br />approved in 1993 allowed the improvements to set within 26 feet, 6 inches of the <br />shoreline. The nine feet four inch extended deck would reduce the setback from <br />the original lake shoreland to approximately 16 feet.) <br /> <br />2.0 STAFF COMMENTS: <br /> <br />2.1 State statutes and the City Code state that to approve a variance there must be a physical <br />hardship unique to the site not created by the applicant; the situation is not correctable by <br />reasonable alternative designs; and the variance cannot be based solely on economic <br />Issues. <br /> <br />2.2 Mr. Kadrie is requesting a variance from Section 10 16.22C of the City Code to reduce the <br />required structure (the deck) setback from the shoreline from 75 feet to approxima,tely 23 <br />feet 6 inches from the original damaged shoreline, or 29'6" feet from the repaired <br />shoreline. This represents a variance of 51 '6" from the repaired (current) shoreline. If <br />granted, Mr. Kadrie would be able to retain 3 feet of the original deck extension currently <br />installed on the lakeward side of the kitchen addition. (See the attached diagrams.) <br /> <br />2.3 Staff suggests that Mr. Kadrie does have an alternative which allows existing decks on <br />either side of the kitchen to remain and still be set back at the same distance (26'-6") <br />from the damaged shoreline. These existing decks can also have stairways to exit from <br />the upper level to the at-grade patio. Mr. Kadrie requests 3 feet of deck maintenance area <br />to maintain the existing 14 to 16 foot high glass wall along the lake face of the structure. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br /> <br />Setback - 75 feet <br /> <br />Deck 23 feet, 6 inches from original <br />shore (or 29 feet, 6 inches from <br />repaired shore) <br /> <br />51 feet, 6 inches <br /> <br />Minimum shoreline structure <br /> <br />Allowed by 1993 Variance 26 feet, 6 <br />inches from eroded shoreline for <br />kitchen and deck <br /> <br />Kitchen wall at 26 feet, 6 inches to <br />remain <br /> <br />No further <br />variance <br /> <br />Planning File #3140 (Charles Kadrie) 10.13.99 Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.