2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

266 into the side yard. Taking this into consideration, enforcing a minimum setback from both of a lot’s side 267 lines in this location represents a practical difficulty which the variance process is intended to relieve. 268 Section 1009.04C of the City Code establishes a mandate that the City make five specific findings about 269 a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance. Roseville’s Planning Commission 270 recommended approval of the requested variance based on the following draft findings. 271 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent 272 with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents the sort of residential developmentpromoted 273 by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policieswhile not compromising the policies intended to 274 protect the internal and nearby residential properties. 275 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The proposal 276 is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because the proposed combination of zero- 277 foot and 10-foot side yard setbacks maintains a separation between structures equivalent to the 278 sum of the two required five-foot setbacks. 279 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposal makes 280 reasonable use of the subject property because it conforms to the zoning code in all respects 281 except for this reorganization of side yard setback distances. 282 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. 283 Although the subject property is not unique, the pertinent zoning requirement is theunique 284 circumstance driving this variance request. Specifically, the standard minimum setbacks for lots 285 within a medium-density residential development fails to account for the possible variations of 286 such development. For example, the lot lines in some townhome developments may coincide 287 entirely with the dwellings’ foundations, technically presenting zero-foot setbacks on all sides of 288 the lots even though the distance between structures may well exceed the sum of the minimum 289 setbacks. 290 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Because the 291 proposed residential density is well within the permitted limit and the homes will be separated by 292 a distance that conforms to the standard setbacks, the variance, if approved, would not negatively 293 alter the character of the locality. The Planning Commission did, however, recommend a 294 condition of approval that all zero-setback homes have easements on the abutting lots providing 295 homeowners access to those lots to allow proper maintenance of their homes. 296 Conditional Use 297 The use of the small portion of the subject property north of S McCarrons Boulevard as a shared lake 298 access for the future homeowners is identified in City Code §1017.15.B (Controlled Accesses) of the 299 Shoreland regulations as being allowed only as a conditional use. Section 1009.02.C of the City Code 300 establishes a mandate that the City make five specific findings pertaining a proposed conditional use. 301 Roseville’s Planning Commission recommended approval ofthe application, offering the following 302 findings. 303 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan 304 does not speak directly to the proposed use or the subject property, but the use of residentially zoned 305 lakeshore land for residential lake access is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 306 2. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans. The site is 307 within the geographic scope of the Rice – Larpenteur Vision Plan, which acknowledged “unique 308 lakefront living” and access to Lake McCarrons. The proposed controlled access does not appear to 309 be in conflict with that plan. 7b RCA UPDATED Page 8 of 13