My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_970709
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1997
>
pm_970709
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:00 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:56:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/9/1997
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
6-0. <br />6.PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br />6(b)Planning File 2926. <br /> Request for a Variance, by Robert Skundberg, to <br />reduce the lot area from 11,000 square feet to approximately 9,500 <br />square feet, and to reduce the lot width from 85 feet to 67 feet, for the <br />purpose of subdividing a 19,095 square foot parcel into two parcels in an <br />R-1 zoning district, located at 1742 Alta Vista Drive. <br />Motion: <br /> Member Rhody moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to continue <br />the hearing for PF 2926, because of unresolved issues as stated in the <br />staff report: <br />1.Section 1016.16A, City Code, requires all structures to be set back <br />a minimum of 75' from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of <br />Lake Josephine, a general development lake. The existing <br />accessory structure is set back 20' from the OHWL of Lake <br />Josephine and the existing principal structure is set back 30'. <br />2.Section 1016.26B, City Code, requires a maximum impervious <br />surface coverage of 25% for properties within a shoreland <br />management district. The existing impervious surface coverage of <br />the property is 58% and the proposed impervious surface coverage <br />is 68%. <br />3.Since the principal structure does not meet the required setback <br />from the OHWL, it is classified as a nonconforming structure. <br />Section 1016.22 requires all additions or expansions to the outside <br />dimensions of a nonconforming structure to meet the setback, <br />height and other requirements of Sections 1016.14 through <br />1016.16, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Section 1016.20. <br />4.The substandard non-conforming size of the parcel (6,545 square <br />feet) and the location of the principal structure creates practical <br />difficulty and is a hardship. Because of the nonconforming status <br />of the structure, any addition(s) which would expand the exterior <br />dimensions of the structure would not be allowed. This presents <br />practical difficulty in upgrading and improving the existing <br />residential property. <br />5.The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, through Area <br />Hydrologist Molly Shodeen, expressed concerns that the addition <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.