pf_03487 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the existing legal pre-existing non-conforming condition, except to remove existing structures or driveway. 5.2 Mr. Sutliff desires to add bedrooms for his two sons, with ample closet space; expand the kitchen; add a main level laundry room; and add a porch. Mr. Sutliff also proposes to remove the existing 374 square foot accessory building and replace it with a garden shed 80 square feet ill SIZe. 5.3 The Community Development Department has reviewed the Sutliff proposal and current conditions, concluding that the removal of the existing detached accessory building and replacing it with a much smaller garden shed is a reasonable and practical solution to reduce the parcel's impervious coverage, without completely eliminating needed storage space. 5.4 The Community Development Department further concludes that the proposal to add needed living area (outward versus upward) is also a reasonable and practical request, attempting to meet the goals and objectives ofthe City ofRoseville Housing Plan. Specifically, the Housing Plan encourages reinvestment into existing housing to provide increased functionality to retain families within the community to maintain a quality neighborhood. The proposed 480 square foot living area addition (bedrooms, expanded kitchen, laundry room and porch) provide nuch needed space and a living area amenity to the home. 5.5 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 5.6 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" PF3487 - RPCA 060403 - Page 3 of 5