2003_0602_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 The proposed improvement to the Kueffer parcel attempts to meet the goals and objectives of the Housing Plan. Specifically, the Dousing Plan encourages reinvestment into existing housing to provide increased functionality to retain families within the community to maintain a quality neighborhood. The proposed detached accessory building would provide a 24' x 24' two car detached garage. 5.2 The Kueffer lot slopes up from the street at least 10 feet. The 90 foot wide lot has the house placed in the center of the lot, making it difficult to add a garage to either side. The 1 P201 s.f house is set back over 139 feet from the north property line, making the 69 foot front setback (from Parker Avenue) of the proposed detached garage achievable only with a 70 foot setback variance. The new garage lies further north of the existing home structure in a location where it cannot meet the prevailing setback in the area. By Moving the proposed garage to this location and removing the existing garage and portions of the driveway, the applicant can create a more natural, landscaped pervious surface between the homes along the east property line. 5.3 The Section 1004.01A7 of the Roseville City Code states: "No accessory building or garden shed shall be erected or located within a front yard. .. and behind the established front building line." Based on the proposal by Mr. Kueffer, a front yard setback variance 1s necessary. 5.4 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of f the provisions of this code, the city council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the generalpurpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that fire public health, safety, and general welf are may he secured and substantial Justice dome. 5.5 State statute 462.357, suhd. 6 (2) provides authorityfor the city to "hear requestsfor varian ces from the literal provisions of f the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because o, f circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions spill be in keeping with the spirit and intent of f the ordinance. ''Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot he put to a reasonable use r; f used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is clue to circumstances unique to the property not created b the landowner, and the variance, if gratz ted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship r: f reasonable use for the property exists under the tens of the ordinance.... The hoard or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" ` r PF3469 - RCA 06/02/03- Page 3 of 6