2003_0609_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/ FINDINGS. 5.1 The proposed improvement to the I ue f e`er parcel attempts to meet the goals and objectives of the Housing Plan. Specifically} the Housing 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 I ueffer lot slopes up from the street at least 10 feet. The 90 foot pride lot has the house placed in the center of the lot} making it difficult to add a garage to either side. The 1 IP201 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 hone 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 1004.0 1 A7 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. 1 ueffe r, a rron t yard setback variance is 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 tire provisions of this code, the city council shall !rave the power, in a specific case and after notice and public bearings, to vary arty such provision in harrrrorry with the gerreralpurpose and intent thereof and nay impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substairtiai justice done. 5.5 Mate Statute 462.357, subd. 6 () provides authority for the city to `hear requests or variancesfroin tyre literal provisions of the ordinance itz instances where their strict enforcetrrent would cause undue hardship because of ` circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated Mat such actions will be in creeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, " trdue hardship " as used itr connection with the grantilrg of ' a variance means tire property in question cannot be pat to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, th a plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to theproperty not created by the landowner, and the variance, if gratited, will not alter the esserrdai character of tine locality. Economic considerations alone shall trot constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for- the property exists utader the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions irr the granting of variances to insure compliance and to ,protect" PF3469 - RCA 06/02103- Page 3 of 6