2004_0223_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � � � � 9 I� I� l �. I� l� l� L� Lr 5$ 3� �� �i �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� 3 �. �� 3� �� �� �� �� �4 �0 �1 �� �� �� �S �� �� �$ �� 5� �j Extract from Planning Commission meeting draft minutes of February 4,2004: a. PlanninE File 3536: Request by Ms. Kara Rose, 998 Brooks Avenue, for an 11 foot Variance to Section 1004.02D4 of the Roseville City Code to a11ow the construction of a deck and porch that would encroach into the required 30 foot setback. Chair Mulder opened the continued hearing and requested the City Planner present the verbal summary of the staff report dated February 4,2004. The Chair explained the reason for the continuance was that residentswere not heard at the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 2004. Thomas Paschke, City Planner, explained that the applicant seeks approval of an 11 foot Variance to Section 1004.02D4 (Comer Lot Setback) of the Roseville City Code to a11ow the construction of a 14 foot deep deck and porch, 19 feet from the west (Ag1en Street ) property 1ine. He illustrated the proposal with photos and explained the site slopes and the preservation of existing trees. Mr. Paschke further indicated that based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this proj ect report, the Community Development Staff recommends approval of an 11 foot Variance to Section 1004.02D4 (side yard adjacent a street) of the Roseville City Code for Kara Rose to a11ow 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 Ag1en Street) or an 11 foot encroachment into the required 30 foot setback. b. c. The parcel being limited to an impervious coverage of 4,115 sq. ft. 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 wi11 be permitted. e. f. The review and approval of a building permit must be consistentwith the approved plans and variance. 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 Ag1en, an owner for ten years, explained this concern for the variance request. He explained that this proposal is adj acent to the Berkner property of�ices. It wi11 reduce the Berkner view of the 1ake. The expansion wi11 take away privacy and wi11 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 Li11a explained a loss in property value. A written rebuttal to the Rose request was submitted by Mr. Berkner. Mr. Berkner explained that reducing