2001_0212_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WHEREAS, the proposed home will be setback 49 feet from the Ordinary High Watermark (OHW). This setback is appro�mately the same as the e�sting structure (48 feet) and is consistent with adj acent homes and requires a 26 foot variance; and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the proposal and has indicated support for the redevelopment of the parcel and concluded that the site has hardships that warrant variances; and WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission, on 7anuary 10,200 1, conducted a public hearing regarding the request and made the following findings: The property owner did not create the hardship. The lot division occurred and the structure was constructed and improved many years before the current owner purchased the property. City records indicate the existing structure was constructed in 1934 with sewer, water, foundation and a basement being installed in the early 1960's. The Roseville City Code was adopted in 1959 and the Shoreland Ordinance adopted in 1974. 2. The economics of constructing an addition and remodeling versus constructing new are quite different. The e�sting structure does not meet most building codes. Remodeling would be costly and difficult. New construction would provide a modem structure that meets a11 current building codes and the purpose and intent of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. 3. Requiring a setback of 75 feet from the OHW would be overly restrictive and out of character with the adjacent homes. The parcel has a sharp (vertical) transition from the road inward creating a unique physical feature that provides difficulties for redevelopment and direct access. Access is currently (will remain) via a private easement with the west properiy owner. The narrow width of the parcel limits the type, style, and design options for a new home. Adjacent homes are located 38 feet (east) and 60 feet (west) from the OHW suggesting the proposed new home be placed 49 feet (the a�erage of adjacent lots) from the OHW and in a similar line to the lakeshore. 4. Given e�sting conditions (parcel depth, width, and slope), the pro�mity of adjacent structures from Lake Owasso, limited structure design options, and a requirement to meet current side yard setbacks, there appears to be no alternative site designs that would allow the proposed construction to comply with the City Code and eliminate the need for variances. S. The impacts of this redevelopment project, if the variances were issued, will not create any significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare. To the contraty, the proposal removes a dilapidating structure (modified cabin) that is in dire need of improvement and provides added value to the neighborhood. WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's recommendation on Monday, January 22, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: 2