Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 10116.22A1 (Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-conformities can continue but are <br />subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair after <br />damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use. <br /> <br />2. Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a minimum of <br />75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW). <br /> <br />3. Section 1016.26B1 (Storm Water Management) requires all single-family lots within the <br />Shoreland Management District to have no more that 25% impervious site coverage. <br /> <br />4. Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and <br />Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet and side yard <br />setbacks of 1 0 feet. <br /> <br />5. The property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure <br />was constructed and improved many years before the current owner purchased the property. <br />City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1934 with sewer, water, <br />foundation and a basement being installed in the early 1960 'so The Roseville City Code was <br />adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974. <br /> <br />6. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new are quite <br />different. The existing structure does not meet most building codes. Remodeling would be <br />costly and difficult. New construction would provide a modern structure that meets all current <br />building codes and the purpose and intent of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />7. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of character <br />with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from the road inward <br />creating a unique physical feature that provides difficulties for redevelopment and direct <br />access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private easement with the west property owner. <br />The narrow width of the parcel limits the type, style, and design options for a new home. <br />Adjacent homes are located 38 feet (east) and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the <br />proposed new home be placed 49 feet (the average of adjacent lots) from the OHWand in a <br />similar line to the lakeshore. <br /> <br />8. Given existing conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the proximity of adjacent structures <br />from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to meet current side <br />yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that would allow the proposed <br />construction to comply with the City Code and eliminate the need for variances. <br /> <br />9. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create any <br />significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare. To the contrary, the <br />proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modified cabin) that is in dire need of improvement <br />and provides added value to the neighborhood. <br /> <br />3 <br />