pm_950712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1995 Mr. Falk pointed out that Mr. Oren chose not to move forward with this plan for economic reasons and substituted a new plan which would involve demolishing the existing structure and building a new house utilizing a portion of the existing footings and foundations. The staff reviewed the new plans and concluded that the change was not significant, and Mr. Oren was allowed to begin construction. City Planner Falk indicated that, as soon as demolition of the cabin began, Mr. Oren's neighbors alerted the staffand that the construction project was halted. A "stop work" order was issued based on an interpretation of the Shoreline Code that if a legal non-conforming site is demolished, the new setback requirements would have to be enforced. Michael Falk pointed out that the staff had interpreted the code to allow reconstruction as long as the outside walls/foundation remained. However, most of the walls and foundation were removed in the demolition process. Mr. Falk pointed out that the city's legal counsel indicated that the footings and foundation that are remaining do not constitute a structure, and that either the plans had to be amended to meet the setback requirements or that a variance would have to be granted by the city. Mr. Falk pointed out that Mr. Oren has requested a 38 foot shoreline variance and a 5 foot sideyard setback variance to allow the structure to be built at the same location as the existing cabin. Mr. Oren's request is based on the unique shape and characteristics of the property which is long and narrow with a slope for a walkout portion. Mr. Falk pointed out that the applicant would also like to preserve existing mature trees on the site. City Planner Falk pointed out that, in fact, 4 variances would be required. These variances include variance to lot area requirements to have a lot less than 15,000 square feet; a variance to the lot width to have a lot less 100 feet in width; variance to the 75 foot setback from the lake; and a variance to the sideyard setback requirements to have a setback less than 5 feet. City Planner Falk concluded that the lot, while substandard is size and width, is a buildable lot, and that denial of the variance to the lot size with requirements would deny him reasonable use of the property which, therefore, would justify the granting of the lot size and width variances. Mr. Falk further concluded that, because alternatives exist to construct a dwelling on the site which would not require either the shoreline setback or the sideyard setback variances, that a hardship does not exist to grant these variances. Mr. Falk indicated that the staff recommendation would, therefore, be that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot size and width variances, and denial of the shoreline setback and sideyard setback variances. 10