Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> SECTION 1004.01A6 Existin!! Condition Proposed Condition Variance Requested <br /> Impervious Covera~e i , <br /> 30% Total Lot Size Allowed 3,265 sq. ft. or 3,450 sq. ft. or 304 sq. ft. <br /> 31% 33% 3% <br /> SECTION 1004.01E i I <br /> Predominant Setback i I <br /> i <br />I 40 feet of reater ! 45 feet I 38 feet 2 feet i <br />I , <br /> <br />g <br /> <br />5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: <br /> <br />5.1 Section 1 004.01A6 of the Roseville City Code was created in 1999 and affords a <br />residential property owner an impervious coverage of30% oftheir parcel size. In the <br />case of the Hanon parcel, existing impervious coverage exceeds the Code allowance, <br />which restricts and limits what improvements can be implemented on the parcel. <br />Specifically, home improvements such as a second floor addition or additions that replace <br />existing impervious coverage can be constructed without variances. However, widening <br />and lengthening the attached garage for better accessibility and use, adds impervious <br />coverage and requires a variance, unless existing impervious surface area is removed. <br /> <br />5.2 Section 1 004.0lE establishes a predominant front yard setback at the present distance the <br />front of a home lies from the front property line or 40 feet. The Hanon principal structure <br />generally lies 45 from feet the front property line, which distance affords the home <br />owners the ability to add approximately 5 feet to the existing attached garage without <br />seeking a variance or setback permit. Based on the Hanor proposal, a variance is <br />necessary because the desired addition encroached past the 40 foot minimum setback <br />distance regulation. <br /> <br />5.3 As indicated above, the Hanons have few options to increase the usefulness of the <br />existing principal structure footprint. Specifically, existing impervious coverage on the <br />parcel would need to be removed and replaced with useable building area. The Hanons <br />have determined this to be a radical and costly option in order to allow a small (248 sq. <br />ft.) addition to the attached garage. The City Planner has determined all options to be <br />impractical and unreasonable given existing conditions on the parcel. <br /> <br />5.4 The home is determined to be a legal pre-existing non-conforming use due to the parcel <br />having 3,265 sq. ft. (31 %) impervious coverage prior to the enactment of Section <br />1 004.01A6 in 1999. <br /> <br />PF3554 - RVBA 040704 - Page 3 of6 <br />