pf_03408 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The Huppertz property (site/structures) is unique in that impervious coverage occupies 30% of the parcel. The Huppertz did not create this situation, but rather, unknowingly purchased the property which now (since the 1999 ordinance change) has an impervious coverage limitation. These facts limit any proposed structural modifications outside current footprints without an approved deviation (variance) from the City. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances uniQue to the property not created by the landowner. C. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: The improvements proposed though not normal for a 1950's home are standard in today's society. Specifically, over 90% of homes built today include a two or three stall attached garage. Further, homes built today also include a variety of amenities such as larger kitchen/family areas, multiple bathrooms, and a mud room. The design proposed for the Huppertz home will not be out of character or context for a home built in the late 1950's. The Community Development Staff has determined that this variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of this project report, staff recommends approval ofa 10% variance to Section 1004.01A6 of the Roseville City Code for John & Julie Huppertz to allow certain home and site improvements at 2465 Churchill Street, subject to the following conditions: a. All building and site improvements not exceeding 4,329 square feet of impervious area. b. The review and approval of a building plan permit consistent with the approved setback permit and variance plans. c. The installation of roof gutters to properly direct roof drainage away from the adjacent properties. 7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 On July 10, 2002, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Huppertz variance request. There were no citizens to address the request and the City Planner indicated that all variance correspondence received were positive. 7.2 Based on the findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated July 10,2002, the Planning Commission recommended (6-0) to approve the Huppertz request. PF3408 - ReA 072902 - Page 4 of 5