Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'i <br /> <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 <br />are subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair <br />after 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 <br />of 75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW), <br /> <br />3, Section 1004,02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard <br />and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires afront yard setback of 30 feet and <br />side yard setbacks of 1 0 feet. <br /> <br />4. Section 602.06 (Parking of Boulevard Prohibited) does not allow parking of vehicles in the <br />street right-of-way (boulevard. <br /> <br />5. The property owner did not create the hardship, The lot division occurred and the <br />structure was constructed and improved many years before the current property owner <br />purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in <br />1957 with municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was <br />adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974. <br /> <br />6, Like many homes built prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the Vesterholt <br />structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the Ordinary High <br />Watermark. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and <br />require removal of existing living area. <br /> <br />7. The new construction (garage addition) can be justified as added livability, accessibility <br />and by providing necessary space for maneuvering vehicles, and provision of accessible <br />storagefor Ms. Vesterholt who has a disability. <br /> <br />8. The addition, though within the required ten-foot side yard setback, is consistent at five feet <br />with the other lots within the cul-de-sac and neighborhood. <br /> <br />9. City records indicate that the right-of-way for Heinel Circle was dedicated with the <br />original Oak Point plat in 1949, but do not indicate why the existing home infringes 15 feet <br />within the requiredfront yard setback. With the additional eightfoot requested <br />encroachment into the required setback the proposed garage will set within seven feet of <br />the street right-of-way line, The distance from the proposed addition to the street curb will <br />be approximately 37 feet and will be visually consistent with 695 Heine! Circle. Within this <br />37 feet a vehicle can be completely parked off of the street pavement. There appears to be <br />no adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. <br /> <br />10. The curb line of the cul-de-sac is situated approximately 30 feet from the property line, thus <br />allowing ample area between the new garage addition and street curb line to park a <br />vehicle, which does not create any significant impacts on the minimally (mostly adjacent <br />residents and mail delivery) traveled Heinel Circle. <br /> <br />3 <br />