pf09-007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � �: , encroachments, as well as facilitating future patios, decks, and porches. In 2008 the City �.� Planner attended a gathering of property owners to explain the City's position regarding c� the encroachments and to listen to property owner concerns. The decision of whether to c� proceed was left up to the Association. However, the Planning Division is not interested �n in a solution that relies on potentially politicized voting by the association for support to � � be granted and does want to create an analysis/enforcement nightmare where lots are � � looked upon or treated differently given their size and/or location. , .. 6.0 PROPOSED AMENDMENT/STAFF COMMENT �� 6.1 The Roseville City Code is less restrictive than the PUD Agreement in allowing a patio �� and/or deck that does not rise above the height of the ground floor; such decks and patios ��; may extend to as near as two feet from a side or rear property line. Decks and enclosed � � porches extending above the ground floor, however, are to be setback a minimum of 10 �� feet from side property lines and 30 feet from rear yard property lines. �� 6.2 The proposal to amend the approved PUD of March 4, 2002 is centered on three sa components: ANtEND�N� the PUD Agreement to revise the setback requirements for �� patios, decks, and porches, vACAT�N� generally 10 to 11 feet of the 25+-foot wide utility �� and drainage easement that surrounds the development site, and RE-PLAT'I'ING to enlarge �� the seven lots by incorporating the vacated easement into each lot. ��a 6.3 The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal for its potential impacts to adjacent �� properties, and has concluded that the impact of affording the seven lots an additional sc> 10+ feet in which to construct a patio, deck, or porch would be minimal. � � 6.4 It is worth noting that the adjacent residential properties are allowed under the City Code �� to construct or expand patios, decks, and/or porches closer to their side or rear property Fs line than what is being proposed in this amendment. � 0 6.5 Based on the survey provided by E.G. Rud and Sons, the proposed developable land � i addition would be roughly 10 feet in width, which is based on a minimum utility and �� drainage easement of 15 feet in width. The additional 10+ feet of lot depth would afford s:< current and future home owners options not currently allowed. Some of the existing s�a homes have been improved in a manner that leaves very little room for a patio or deck, or �� to add/modify current space for a porch and still meet the requirements of the existing �c PUD Agreement. The 10 feet inclusion also eliminates all deck and patio encroachments, s � but does not eliminate existing landscape features on Lot 1, 2, 4, and 7. �,a 6.6 Based on a minimum 15 foot wide utility and drainage easement, the City Engineer � � support for the project and specifically the vACAT�oN of pre-existing utility and drainage � oc;, easement. The City Engineer's recollection when the initial proposal came forward was � o � that 25+ feet seemed excessive for an easement, but did not dispute its provision as � o� common area and an easement. The existing drainage system was designed and i o j implemented within the easement and can be modified in-order to create proper drainage � o� for the development site. �o� 6.7 The corner lot at 2766 Cohansey Circle includes landscape enhancements that encroach � oc into a part of the drainage easement not being vacated, but the Engineering Division is i o � unaware of any drainage issues related to these improvements and thus supports an � o� exception in the PUD Agreement for allowing this landscaping to remain. It should be PF09-007 RCA 092109.doc Page 3 of 5