pf_03280 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-.,.... 3404255 WHEREAS, the property owner wants to eliminate an existing (unsightly) shed and construct an addition onto his existing garage to improve handicapped accessibility for his wife. The existing garage, 19 feet wide by 21 feet deep (399 square feet) lies approximately 15 feet from the front yard (east) property line. The proposal would place the garage approximately 7 feet from the front property line. This front yard setback variance also requires a variance from Section 602 allowing vehicles to be parked within street right-of-way. WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-l Districts) also requires a side yard setback of 10 feet for the property along the northeast property line; and WHEREAS, the property owner proposes to extend the garage towards the northeastern side yard property line to create an additional stall and enclosed storage area. The design and additional area will offer accessibility to stored items and greater movement around vehicles. However, the proposed addition would encroach five feet into the required lO-foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, Section 1016.22Al (Non-Conformities) stipulates that non-conformities can continue but are subject to applicable State Statutes and City Ordinance regarding alterations, repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; and WHEREAS, the principal structure has been determined to be a pre-existing non- conforming structure that was constructed prior to the City adopting Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management regulations. The specific non-conformity is the distance the principal structure is setback (56 feet) from the Ordinary High Watermark; and WHEREAS, Section 1016.16 (Structure Design Standards) requires structures to be set back a minimum of75 feet from the ordinary high watermark (OHW); and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has indicated support for the garage addition and concluded that the existing home given the circumstances and warrants the approval of the proposed a variances; and WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on January 10,2001, conducted a public hearing regarding the Vesterholt request and made the following findings: 1. Mr. Property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure was constructed and improved many years before the current property owner purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1957 with municipal sewer and water being installed in 1964. The Roseville City Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974. 2. Like many homes built prior to the Shoreland Ordinance being adopted, the 699 Heinel Circle structure does not comply with the established 75-foot setback from the Ordinary High Watermark. Requiring a setback of75 feet from the OHW would be unworkable and require removal of existing living area. tq 2