2000_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that a strict application of the City Code would work an unusual hardship on the applicant; and Whereas, the hardship was not created by the applicant; and Whereas, the granting of the variance will not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare of the community; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation on Monday, October 23, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council stipulates that Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, Frontage, Yard and Lot Area Requirements in R-1 Districts) requires a front yard setback of 30 feet, and further, that 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, and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: A portion of the replacementgarage lies within the required front yard setback, while the new study area addition (a small portion of the garage) would meet the required setback. The parking for the garage would be on the south side of the building, not adjacent to the right-of way. 2. Topography and trees in this area have created hardships in the past, requiring residents in the neighborhood to obtain variances to complete or replace existing non-conforming garages. 3. The existing garage property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions permitted by the ordinance because, in part, of structural deterioration. 5. The hardship is not the applicant's creation. 6. If granted the variance will not impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. The Kenney request has been for�warded to the Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. The proposed detached garage replacement does not involve any infractions, new or pre-existing, to the shoreland requirements of Section 1016 of the City. 8. Council additions.. .