Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.4 lot coverage percentages: <br /> <br /> Code Reauirement Existine: Condition Proposed Condition <br />Lot Width 100 feet 40 feet 40 feet <br />Lot Area 15,000 Sq. ft. 6,689.4 sq. ft. 6,689.4 sq. ft. <br />Impervious Coverae:e 25% 39% 32% <br /> <br />3.0 STAFF COMMENT <br /> <br />3 .1 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the <br />ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance shall only occur <br />when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />3.2 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting a variance means the property <br />in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the <br />official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />property not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the locality. <br /> <br />3.3 Conditions may be attached to a variance that mitigate the impacts on adjoining <br />properties. <br /> <br />3.4 The construction offon'ner home dates back to 1910. Mr. Youngquist inspected the <br />home with an architect to determine whether the structure was worthy of an <br />addition/modifications. The inspection determined the home was not structurally <br />conducive to alterations. <br /> <br />3.5 The City Code would not have allowed any alterations or modifications to either the <br />house or the garage without a variance. The removal of the former home and garage, and <br />the redevelopment ofthe property based on the proposed site survey, creates a parcel that <br />complies with setback and height requirements of the Roseville City Code. <br /> <br />3.6 The Comprehensive Plan encourages reconstruction and upgrading of residential <br />structures (and neighborhood) throughout the community. <br /> <br />3.7 The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the initial proposal and <br />provided staff with their comments/concerns (letter attached). Staff has made every <br />attempt to address the concerns indicated by the DNR. However, given the location of <br />existing homes on either side of the Youngquist property, staff determined it to be <br />problematic moving the structure closer to the front property line. Shifting of the <br />structure would require a front yard setback and reduce on-site vehicle parking <br />capabilities for the already tight parcel. A copy ofthis report has been submitted to the <br />DNR for their consideration. <br /> <br />PF3210 - RCA (052200) Page 2 of 4 <br />