pm_040204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

yard adjacent a street) of the Roseville City Code for Kara Rose to allow the construction of a 14 foot by 14 foot porch and 14 foot by 10 foot on to the west side of the principal structure to within 19 feet of the property line at 998 Brooks Avenue, subject to the following conditions (in project report dated February 4, 2004): a. The porch and deck being limited to a depth of 14 feet (addition from principal structure towards property line adjacent Aglen Street) or an 11 foot encroachment into the required 30 foot setback. b. The parcel being limited to an impervious coverage of 4,115 sq. ft. c. Gutters installed along the eves of the porch to direct roof drainage to the west or north yard areas. d. The deck must remain an open-air deck - in the future no enclosure of this deck as a screen porch or expanded living area to the principal structure will be permitted. e. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistent with the approved plans and variance. 1. A property survey including property lines, existing features and the proposal may be required by the Building Official if adequate measurements cannot be found to establish the limits of the 11 foot encroachment. Mr. Tom Berkner, representing John Berkner, 2476 Aglen, an owner for ten years, explained this concern for the variance request. He explained that this proposal is adjacent to the Berkner property offices. It will reduce the Berkner view of the lake. The expansion will take away privacy and will reduce value because of loss of view of Lake Bennett by Mr. Berkner and the view from the neighbors further south. Neighbors could be heard and seen from the new porch and deck. A letter from realtor Margaret Lilla explained a loss in property value. A written rebuttal to the Rose request was submitted by Mr. Berkner. Mr. Berkner explained that reducing the applicant's window view was considered a hardship while no hardship was acknowledged for the adjoining neighbors (losing their view). Other locations on the site could be used (east side, adjacent to garage) or through a tuck-under garage and a porch. A variance could also be granted to the north without diminishing value of properties to the south. Member Stone asked if there are views from other rooms in the Berkner house (living room, front porch, and driveway). Member Blank asked if other property owners have objected (None on record). Chair Mulder asked if trees were planted, instead of a porch, what would the reaction be. (Trees are acceptable.) Mr. Berkner suggested an alternative design with split entry or tuck-under garage. Kara Rose and Charlie Rose, 998 Brooks, stated that this was the only location that worked on this site. Mr. Rose checked on property values with the County and realtors and found no adverse effect. Seven contractors reviewed the Rose alternative, noting that the kitchen and dining room are on the west side of the house. He explained the 3- season porch and deck proposal, which does not extend beyond the back (south) wall of the house. Pictures of the fencing and foliage were explained. Summer pictures illustrate that the lake is not visible in the summer because of the thick woods. An uncovered deck can be placed on this site without a variance. Chair Mulder asked where the porch entry will be for the porch (south side of chimney). Why not move porch north (structurally not stable). Mr. Berkner explained the view from his son's windows stating that trees in the park could be removed in the future to provide a better view of the lake. Chair Mulder noted that trees cannot be removed from the park because of shoreland regulations. Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Member Peper asked if values of nearby houses are the same, does the location change value? (Based on the sales value and square footage of house and lot). Member Ipsen questioned the Berkner winter view and the summer foliage view. Thomas Paschke explained that the City has no regulations prohibiting tree planting or obstructing views, except in the street view triangle. Chair Mulder asked what is the rear yard setback (east, 30 feet; south 5 feet). A general discussion of setbacks ensued. Member Blank commented that this proposal is not nearly as close as others in the neighborhood, and he would