pf_03492 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 REVIEW of REQUEST: 4.1 Section 1004.02D5 of the Roseville City Code (Dwelling Dimensions - Rear Yard Setback) requires a principal structure to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from a rear yard property line. The Casper home lies at an angle to the rear yard property line approximately 38 feet on the north (where the addition would be constructed) and 28 feet on the south. 4.2 Ms. Casper desires to replace an existing ground level deck with the screened porch and four season porch. The new addition would also tie into the existing second level deck (see site photo) located along the north side of the home. 4.3 The proposed addition at 16 feet deep by 14 feet wide would lie 19 feet from the rear property line on the south and 23 feet from the rear property line on the nOlih, which encroachment requires an 11 foot variance. 4.4 The Casper home was constructed in 1984 and is situated on a lot approximately 14,810 square feet in size. The split level home has an estimated footprint of 1,254 square feet and driveway/walkway/patio area of764 square feet, for a total impervious coverage of 2,018 square feet well below the 4,443 square feet afforded under the City Code. 4.5 The desire to place the two porches on the east side of the home is to have them face directly into the rear yard of the neighboring parcel (2507 Woodbridge street) and Acorn Park, as well as to get the structure into a location that affords shade, without being required to remove the existing deck. 4.6 Variance Conditions Proposed: SECTION 1004.02D5 Minimum Rear Yard Existing Condition Proposed Condition Variance Setback Requested 30 Feet 28 Feet (nearest point) 19 Feet (nearest point) 11 Feet 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 The Casper parcel is afforded limited options when considering placement of the proposed screened/four-season porch. Specifically the addition could be placed to the north side of the home requiring no variance or on to the east side of the home requiring a 9 foot rear yard setback variance. 5.2 The City Planner has reviewed these two options and concluded that there are no reasonable, practical, or economical options available that reduce or eliminate the variance, without requiring removal of the existing deck, major structural modifications to the existing home, and reducing the usefulness of the proposed porches. PF3492 ReA 072103 - Page 2 of 5