pf_03454 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 c. Plannin2: File 3454: Request by the Daniel Boerigter for a VARIANCE to Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) and Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Front Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code to allow the construction of additional living area and a porch to the home at 2080 Farrington Avenue. Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project report dated March 5, 2003. Thomas Paschke indicated that Daniel Boerigter has applied for aI, 780 square foot (12%) variance to Section 1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) and a 9 foot variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Front Yard Setback) to allow the addition of living area, a front porch, a covered deck and sidewalk to the home and premises. The proposed improvement, constructing aI, 125 square foot living area consisting of a living room, bathroom, master bedroom, as well as a 111 square foot covered deck, a 72 square foot front porch, and 441 square feet of sidewalk improvements, will bring the total impervious coverage of the parcel to 6,259 square feet or 42% and require a variance of 1,780 square feet to Section 1004.01A6 and an 9 foot variance to section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that that there are limited options available to Mr. Boerigter and therefore recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: a. All existing and proposed building and site improvements shall not exceed a maximum impervious coverage of 6,259 square feet. b. The structure improvements being limited to: a front porch that encroaches no more than 9 feet into the required front yard setback and is no more that 72 square feet in size; a living area addition limited to 1,125 square feet; a covered deck limited to 111 square feet; and sidewalk improvements limited to 441 square feet, as identified on the submitted site plan. C. The addition must match or be of similar to that of the existing building in color and/or materials. d. Gutters and downspouts being placed along the eve of the additions were appropriate to properly direct roof drainage onto the subject parcel and away from neighboring properties. e. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and vanance. f No additional accessory buildings or expansion of impervious area being allowed. Mr. Boerigter stated that the plan was well thought out and fits the needs of the family. Member Mulder asked if the porch could be moved north and set in the courtyard. The applicant stated that such alignment defeats the affect of the architectural design and reduces the hallways. Member Mulder noted that there may be other alternatives.