1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

i , ;, , Dietrich Variance Planning Case 551-99 April 7, 1999 Page 2 Ar►�tiysis: Oiher Cities' Codes: The City of Roseville has adopted tanguage that takes into consideration the existence of takeshore Iots, Their Code states, "Accessory buildings on through lots and lakeshore lois may be located between the roadway and the principal stf-ucture, p�ovided said accesso�y building meets the t�equi�ed front yard setbackfor the district in which zt is located. " Other municipalities within the metro area have similar provisions that allow a garage in ihe front yard provided the garage meets the required setback for a principal structure. Tla�icrrrce Crite�zcz: For the Planning Commission to grant a variance, it must examine the criteria established in 5ection 1125.�2, Subdivision 2, of the City Code, which relates to hardships. Specifically, a variance may only be granted in those cases where ihe Code imposes undue hardship or practicat dif�iculties to the property ovvr�er. The individuai criteria, with responses, are as follows: Exceptional o� extraordznary circumstances apply to t.he property which does not apply generally to other propeYties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topogj-aphy or other circumstances over which the owneYS of the property since the effectzve date heYeof have had no control. ;l The circumstance which can be construed as extraordinary relating to this request is the - fact that the this is a lake�frant property, one of only six in the City. Locating a garage between the home and the lake wouid be undesirable and would detract from the lalce- front aesthetics, Furthermore, the area between the house and the lake is subject to prohibitive development restrictions, b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyecd by other properties in the same district under the tepms of thrs Title. It is not clear that a literal interpretation af the Code would deprive the applicant oi rights cominoniy enjoyed by other properties in this districi. There are only very few examples of garages being locaied between the house and the str�et, and most often, this is a result of an older home on a subdivided lot which at one time toak access from a different st�'eei. c. That the special condrtions or circumstances a'o not t�esult fYOm Phe actions of tl�e applicant. The applicant is clearly causing the condition for which the variance is requested. The basis of ihe request however is reasonable and logica( if one is to preserve and enhance the property's most unique ass�t, that af the lake�fi-ont. Disturbing the take-firont with a - garage wouid not be preferable and would require the approval of a wetland buffer permit. . . ;.