pf_02925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ~ 2. Section 1016.26B, City Code, requires a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent for properties within a shoreland management district. The existing impervious surface coverage of the property is 70 percent and the proposed impervious surface coverage is 70 percent. 3. Since the principal structure does not meet the required setback from the OHWL, it is classified as a nonconforming structure. Section 1016.22 requires all additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of a nonconforming structure to meet the setback, height and other requirements of Sections 1016.14 through 1016.16, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Section 1016.20. 4. The substandard non-conforming size of the parcel (6,545 square feet) and the location of the principal structure creates practical difficulty and is a hardship. Because of the nonconforming status of the structure, any addition(s) which would expand the exterior dimensions of the structure would not be allowed. This presents practical difficulty in upgrading and improving the existing residential property. 5. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen, expressed concerns that the addition as originally proposed would be closer to the OHWL than the rest of the dwelling and that the addition would substantially increase the impervious surtace coverage of the lot. The modified proposal addresses these concerns. 6. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Title 10 of the City Code (Zoning). 7. The proposed variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a variance to reduce the setback from the OHWL of Lake Josephine to 22 feet and a variance to allow the continuance of an impervious lot coverage of 70 percent at 1199 Josephine Road be granted. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Wiski and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Wiski, Mastel, Goedeke, Maschka and Wall and the following voted against the same:None WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution 9453 - Page 2 of 3