2004_0329_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

slope. Depending on the attached garage's size, one or more variance might be necessary. An attached garage at the size proposed would be difficultto place on the parcel unless the existing attached garage stall was removed. Such a garage may preclude vehicle access to the rear yard. The City Planner has determined these options to be impractical and unreasonable given existing conditions on the parcel. 5.6 Although the principal structure was constructed in 1940 and prior to the adoption of a City zoning ordinance, the land was not subdivided until 1976. This action, as determined by the Community Development Staff, places a 10 foot side yard setback requirementon the property for a principal structure versus a 5 foot side yard setback requirementfor most lots and homes platted and constructedprior to May 1959. 5.5 The Community Development Staff has reviewed this proposal and determined that it is difficultto justify a departurefrom the strict application of Section 1004.O1A5 (Overall Area) of the City Code allowing the applicant to construct a 980 sq. ft. detached accessory building. The Communitv Development Staff also o�oses the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 5.6 However, the Community Development Staff has determined there is justification for reducing the accessory building to 26 feet by 32 feet or 832 sq. ft., which eliminates the need for a Conditional Use Permit and eliminates the need for a Variance to Section 1004.Q1A5. It does, however, require a Variance to Section 1004.O1A7 (allowance in front yard). 5.7 In the fall of 1999 the City, through the Community Development Director, approved a Setback Permit for this property that would have allowed the construction of an attached 2-1/2 stall �ara�e on the north side of the home 4 feet from the side vard pronertv line. The initial Setback Permit approval was appealed to the City Council. The Council directed staff to re-notify the Setback Permit hearing and have the Development Review Committee (DRC) hold another hearing on the subj ect request. The DRC approved the Setback Permit adding two conditions, increasing conditions of approval from 3 to 5. However, the proj ect was never completed because the property owners moved from Roseville. 5.8 In Section 1013 the Code states ..... Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. PF3549 — RCA 032904 - Page 4 of 4