pf_03786 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. To the extent that the existing driveway overlaps the proposed new properiy, impervious coverage is added and useable area is diminished, effectively shrinking the new lot with pavement that would be useless to the future buyers. That is, even if the proposed new boundaries extend into (or beyond) the existing driveway, that area is unusable for the owners of the new property. Because of this, the western edges of the existing driveway and garage effectively form the eastern boundary of the new property, regardless of where the new property lines are drawn. 5. The DRC generally agreed that the proposed lot line is "substantially perpendicular" as required by § 1103.06F, but the DRC was unanimously unsupportive of the creation of a property boundary that varies in width as you've proposed. The reason for this is that such boundaries tend to create difficulties for the property owners and the City as questions arise in the future about exactly where the various corners and lot lines are located. a. One alternative could be to create a 75-foot-wide lot that has uniform property lines. This would require variances, however, for the reduced lot width as well as the reduced setback of the existing attached garage, and you would have the burden of demonstrating the "hardship" that makes the variance necessary. b. Another alternative, preferred by the DRC, would be to relocate the garage and driveway to the east side of the existing house and to create a lot that has a uniform width of 85 feet. This would, of course, create additional expense, but no variances would be required and the two resulting properties would have a clear, straight-line boundary between them. The primary obstacle to your proposal is the fact that it creates non-conforming conditions on your property and/or on the new property. These nonconformities are identified most concretely in items 3a, 3b, and Sa above; item 2 might also represent a nonconforming condition, depending on the opinion of the City Attorney. It appears that an option similar to item Sb above is the only way to subdivide your property without creating the need for a variance. Getting the required variance(s) is not necessarily impossible, but it would be up to you to demonstrate that you'd be burdened with an "unusual hardship" (§ 1013.02A) if the City were to require your proposal to comply with all applicable Code requirements. You may download a copy of the City Code by following the "Roseville City Code" link from the City's website (http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us� if you'd like to reference the sections cited above. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 651-792-7073 or Thomas Paschke at 651-792-7074. Sincerely, CITY OF ROSEVILLE � / Br n Lloyd _ Associate Planner City of Roseville Community Development Department 2660 Civic Center Drive :• Roseville, Minnesota 55113 651-792-ROSE •:• TDD 651-792-7399 ❖ ww��.ci.roseville.mn.us