Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3.7 The City is concerned with how the house is situated on the parcel and the potential of <br />the home lying over the western property line and possibly into the sewer easement. <br />Although the sewer line was constructed many years after the home was constructed, the <br />house and lot are considered pre-existing non-conforming. However, staff considers <br />these two items critical. Should the home lie over the easement created for the sewer <br />line, staff would have to review options to remedy the matter. Further, should the house <br />be located on the adjoining parcel, the Sladky's would be required to seek an easement or <br />acquire property to remedy the matter. <br /> <br />4.0 POLICY REFERENCE <br /> <br />4.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage <br />reconstruction and upgrading of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout <br />the community. <br /> <br />5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH FINDINGS <br /> <br />5.1 Staff has reviewed the merits of the three variances necessary to allow the Sladky's to <br />proceed with their four-season porch replacement. Staff has concluded that there are <br />hardships present on or effecting the parcel and recommends approval of the request. <br /> <br />5.2 Staff suggests the Commission use an outline of the following possible findings to <br />determine whether the Commission finds an "undue hardship" significant enough <br />to recommend approval of variances by the City Council. <br /> <br />a. The hardship situation was not (was) created by the applicant (Sladky's) or <br />existed prior to the applicant. . . <br /> <br />b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a <br />variance include ... <br /> <br />c. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include... <br /> <br />d. The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance <br />include.. . <br /> <br />e. The impacts of the project, ifthe variance was issued, would (would not) create <br />significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare <br />including.. . <br /> <br />f Other findings deemed appropriate by the Planing Commission... <br /> <br />PF3266 - RPCA (101100) Page 3 of 4 <br />