pm_991013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Egli indicated she was uncomfortable using the new shoreline as a point of reference and did not see any additional hardship being demonstrated. Thomas Paschke pointed out the recommended motion did not include continuing the three foot maintenance walk to the bedroom area, that other methods of ingress/egress are available, and that the recommendation is for the maintenance walk to extend only in front of the north kitchen wall. Charles Kadrie requested extension of the three-foot maintenance walk to the bedroom area. Motion: Member Egli moved to direct the applicant, Charles Kadrie, to work with the staff to develop additional plantings to screen the home for the lake. Motion failed for lack of seconding party. Vote on original motion: Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Original motion passes. 6b. Planning File 3152: Nadya EI-Afandi, 1810 Alta Vista Drive, is requesting a 20-foot variance from Section 1004.02D (front yard setback) to allow the construction of a porch onto the existing home into the required 30-foot front yard setback. Chair Klausing opened the public hearing for the project and requested Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the project report dated October 13, 1999. Thomas Paschke, city planner, advised the variance requested was for reduction in the 30 foot front yard setback (Section 1 004.02D), to allow construction of a porch onto the front (south) and side (west) portions of the home, with a setback of 8.6 feet. He further indicated the home (built in 1941) was currently located 14.5 feet from the property line and that the property had double frontage, a unique shape and topographic features contributing to the variance request. Mr. Paschke advised the staff determined that the double frontage, uniqueness of the shape of the lot, the original date of house construction and limited available yardage for recreation were pre-existing hardships to the property owners. He further indicated, based on findings as outlined in the report dated October 13, 1999, the staff recommended approval to allow construction of a porch 8.6 feet from the property line along Alta Vista Drive. Chair Klausing asked if there was a reasonable alternative of perhaps shifting the addition to the right of the house. Mr. Paschke suggested this may not resolve the existing drainage problems and would not be as aesthetically/architecturally pleasing. The applicant, Nadya EI-Afandi, stated they currently have water in the basement of their home and with the porch construction this could be eliminated and felt the addition to the home would balance the architectural features. He advised when he purchased the home it was 25' from the street but with street reconstruction, the property line was reduced to the existing 14.5 feet. He further indicated the structure was the first city hall of Roseville. Chair Klausing asked if there was anyone present who wished to make a comment or have any questions; there were none and the hearing was closed. Motion: Member Cunningham moved, seconded by member Egli, to recommend approval of the request by Nadya EI- Afandi for a variance from Section 1 004.02D of the City Code to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 8.6 feet to accommodate the construction of a porch on property located at 1810 Alta Vista Drive, based on the following findings: 1. Section 1 004.02D requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. Given how the home is situated on the lot (facing southwest), staff considers Alta Vista Drive to be the corner side yard of the property. However, the City Code requires corner side yards to have the same setback as a front yard or a minimum of 30 feet. 2. The existing home was constructed in 1941, prior to the establishment of the City of Roseville, and lies 14.5 feet from the property line adjacent to Alta Vista Drive. 3. In 1986 Alta Vista Drive was reconstructed and the City purchased an additional five (5) feet of property from all residents along Alta Vista Drive, thus reducing the front yard area from 19.5 feet to 14.5 feet. 4. A variance requires the applicant to prove physical hardship and to demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. 5. The property has two retaining walls to accommodate the unique elevation change on the lot. The first is located