pf_03536 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 the applicant's window view was considered a hardship while no hardship was acknowledged for 2 the adjoining neighbors (losing their view). Other locations on the site could be used (east side, 3 adjacent to garage) or through a tuck-under garage and a porch. A variance could also be granted 4 to the north without diminishing value of properties to the south. 5 6 Member Stone asked if there are views from other rooms in the Berkner house (living room, front 7 porch, and driveway). 8 9 Member Blank asked if other property owners have objected (None on record). 10 11 Chair Mulder asked if trees were planted, instead of a porch, what would the reaction be. (Trees 12 arc acceptable.) 13 14 Mr. Berkner suggested an alternative design with split entJy or tuck-under garage. 15 16 Kara Rose and Charlie Rose, 998 Brooks, stated that this was the only location that worked on 17 this site. Mr. Rose checked on property values with the County and realtors and found no adverse 18 effect. Seven contractors reviewed the Rose alternative, noting that the kitchen and dining room 19 arc on the west side of the house. He explained the 3-season porch and deck proposal, which 20 does not extend beyond the back (south) wall of the house. Pictures of the fencing and foliage 21 were explained. Summer pictures illustrate that the lake is not visible in the summer because of 22 the thick woods. An uncovered deck can be placed on this site without a variance. 23 24 Chair Mulder asked where the porch entry will be for the porch (south side of chimney). Why 25 not move porch north (structurally not stable). 26 27 Mr. Berkner explained the view from his son's windows stating that trees in the park could be 28 removed in the future to provide a better view of the lake. Chair Mulder noted that trees cannot bc 29 removed from the park because of shoreland regulations. 30 31 Chair Mulder closed the hearing. 32 33 Member Peper asked ifvalues of nearby houses are the same, does the location change value? 34 (Based on the sales value and square footage of house and lot). 35 36 Member Ipsen questioned the Berkner winter view and the summer foliage view. 37 38 Thomas Paschke explained that the City has no regulations prohibiting tree planting or 39 obstructing views, except in the street view triangle. 40 41 Chair Mulder asked what is the rear yard setback (east, 30 feet; south 5 feet). A general 42 discussion of setbacks ensued. 43 44 Member Blank commented that this proposal is not nearly as close as others in the neighborhood, 45 and he would recommend granting a variance. 46 47 Motion: Member Peper moved, seconded by Member Stone, to recommend approval of an 11 48 foot Variance to Section 1004.02D4 (side yard adjacent a street) of the Roseville City Code to 49 allow the construction of a 14 foot by 14 foot porch and 14 foot by 10 foot deck 011 to the west 50 side of the principal structure to be placed 19 feet from the property line for Kara Rose, 998