Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7.3 Based on the infonnation provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, <br />staff recommends approval ofa 466 square foot (5.2%) VARIANCE to Section <br />1004.01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) and a 8.5 foot VARIANCE to Section <br />1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Front Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code for <br />Sylvia Sefennan, 420 Terrace Drive, to allow construction of a family room, front entry <br />porch, and future pool, subject to the following (revised) conditions: <br /> <br />A The parcel being limited to 3,858 square feet of impervious coverage. <br /> <br />B The family room addition not exceeding 500 square feet in size and meeting the <br />required 5 foot side yard setback. <br /> <br />C The height of the family room addition and second story not exceeding 30 feet at <br />the midpoint of the roof truss. <br /> <br />D The future in-ground pool being limited to a surround not to exceed 332 square <br />feet. <br /> <br />E Gutters being installed on the home with downspouts directed to disburse rain <br />water and snow melt away from adjacent properties <br /> <br />F The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans <br />and variance. The new building to match the existing building in color and/or <br />materials. <br /> <br />8.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br /> <br />8.1 On June 4, 2003, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding <br />the Siefennan request. At the hearing a number of adjacent residents spoke in opposition <br />to the project and the requested variances, including: <br /> <br />.. Indicating their concern over the proposed second story addition in their generally <br />single story (rambler) neighborhood; spoke in opposition to the appropriateness of <br />a covered entry (front porch) on a home in a neighborhood where no home has a <br />porch. <br /> <br />.. V oicing their dismay over allowing an increase in impervious coverage, that <br />could impact adjacent properties regardless of the installation of gutters and <br />properly directed downspouts; <br /> <br />II Stating their concern over the inconsistency in code interpretations between <br />adjacent municipalities regarding impervious coverage for a pool; <br /> <br />II Indicating a general dislike for the process and that their concerns were not <br />received well by Staff nor the Commission (see attached minutes extract). <br /> <br />PF3481 - ReA 06/16/03 - Page 7 of 8 <br />