Laserfiche WebLink
<br />create a conforming setback, but obstruct the view of the garage from the home <br />and look out of place within the context of the parcel. The shed, in the current <br />location, is heavily screened by large evergreen trees and difficult to see from the <br />neighboring (west) home. Further, the property owner to the west supports the <br />variance request. <br /> <br />B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the landowner: Snow build-up on the roof last winter caused the roof <br />to collapse. The necessity ofMr. Telstad's variance is due to his desire to replace <br />the aging garden shed versus placing a new roof on the structure. The Code under <br />a life/safety situation would allow Mr. Telstad to construct a new roof over the <br />existing shed without a variance or City Council approval. The Community <br />Development staff supports the replacement of the shed versus dealing with an <br />aging structure that over time could become a maintenance issue. <br /> <br />C. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: <br />The proposed shed being located 2-1/2 feet from the west property line would not <br />alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, <br />safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties, and is supported by <br />the adjacent property owner. <br /> <br />4.4 Though the Community Development Department strives for compliance and conformity <br />with the Zoning Ordinance we have determined that this request is reasonable and lacks <br />typical impacts that could receive concern on the structures placement. <br /> <br />5.0 POLICY & FISCAL IMPLICATION <br /> <br />5.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage <br />maintaining and improving residential properties and infrastructure, as well as <br />reconstruction and rebuilding of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout <br />the community. <br /> <br />5.2 There are no additional fiscal implications and no public infrastructure improvements or <br />extensions necessary. <br /> <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />6.1 The Community Development staff has determined that hardship was present and that the <br />variance request was reasonable, recommending approval of the 2-112 foot variance to <br />Section 1004.01A8 of the Roseville City Code for property located at 2993 Fairview <br />A venue, based on the hardships issues described in Section 3 and 4 stated above and <br />subject to following conditions: <br /> <br />A. The garden shed not exceeding a size of 10 foot by 10 foot or 100 square feet. <br /> <br />PF3349 ReA 112601 Page 3 of 4 <br />