Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 10, 1993 <br /> <br />Page# 10 <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />City Planner Mike Falk provided a background report dated November 10, <br />1993, in which he described the shoreland requirements of a setback of 75 feet. <br />He also noted the ordinance provides for pre-existing structures such as the <br />Rustad's home which was built before the ordinance. The Rustad's lot is 80 feet <br />in width. The house is 33 feet from the shoreline. Falk noted that the house has <br />a history of degradation and is uninhabitable. The house is proposed to be <br />rebuilt on the same dimensions as the current house except that the <br />reconstruction will include a second story on the back (lakeside of the house). <br />Falk noted that the neighbors are supportive. <br /> <br />City Planner Falk stated that the staff recommended approval of the variance <br />request because there is no additional setback violations proposed and the <br />reconstruction would improve the site. <br /> <br />Member Thomas asked for clarification regarding the height of the structure. <br />Rustad said the height is no more than 26 feet, which is less than the City code <br />maximum of 30 feet. <br /> <br />Chairperson VVietecki asked for explanation of the sections of City code that <br />deal with substandard structures. Falk explained that both the shoreland <br />management ordinance and the City code deal with substandard structures. <br />Mr. David Rustad, 329 S. Owasso Boulevard, explained the process of <br />beginning the reconstruction and then demolition of the structure because of <br />damage by the previous owner. He noted that material in the house is damaged <br />beyond reuse and showed pictures of the house to the Commission. <br /> <br />Chairperson VVietecki asked Rustad if he could use a different foundation <br />dimension, would he change the house design. Rustad responded that he was <br />committed to using the existing house design. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom asked if the DNR had reviewed this proposal and noted that <br />the DNR has a 10 day notice and opportunity to comment. He asked how the <br />50% rebuild requirement impacts this site. Member Thomas commented that she <br />had called the DNR to ask about the issues. <br />