pf_03325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.8 Staff has the following comments regarding the proposal meeting "hardship" criteria: A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The City staff has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls. The Boucher's could construct a detached garage 832 square feet in size and also place a 120 square foot garden shed somewhere in the rear yard. However, it is reasonable to allow the combination of the two; the allowance of a slightly larger accessory structure than the principal structure; and restricting the number of accessory structures on the property to one. B. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner: Mr. Boucher has lost the use of the storage area in which he keeps the trailer and car, along with many ofthe seasonable items. The Boucher's have a moderately sized lot at a width of75 feet and a depth of 135 feet (10,125 sq. ft.) that cannot (without variances) support their storage needs. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: The proposed 1008 sq. ft. detached garage would be two feet wider (24 feet) than the existing garage (22 foot) minimizing the mass of the structure from the street view, and the structure is proposed to be twice as deep (42 feet) as the existing garage (22 foot). The design could be modified through conditions to break-up the mass of the sides facing adjacent properties. All but one of the contiguous property owners signed a petition supporting the Boucher variance and conditional use permit request. Staff does not feel that granting these variances will set a precedent for other homeowners to follow. Instead staff relies on the unique circumstances and parcel characteristics upon which to reach certain conclusions. In the case of the Boucher request, staff has determined that the proposed garage would not alter the essential character or the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 5.0 POLICY & FISCAL IMPLICATION 5.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage maintaining and improving residential properties and infrastructure, as well as reconstruction and rebuilding of residential structures ( and neighborhoods) throughout the community. 5.2 There are no additional fiscal implications and no public infrastructure improvements or extensions necessary. PF3325 RPCA (080801) Page 4 of5