pf07-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect. " 5.7 The propertv in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: Community Development staff cannot find that the property owner faces an undue hardship in this case and, consequently cannot recommend that the variance be approved. Given the above history, however, staff believes that approving the creation of the proposed substandard lots is consistent with the City's application and enforcement of Code requirements in this area. And while it would be within the purview of the Planning Commission and City Council to deny the requested variances for lack of hardship, such a denial would not necessarily advance the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the VARIANCE request is approved. 5.8 The ulight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the nropertv not created by the landowner: Again, while a strict hardship may be absent in this case, the fact that the City Council has approved similar subdivisions under the same Code requirements — with or without variances — gives the applicant the reasonable expectation that this request would again be approved. Specific uniqueness of the parcel is the fact that it is double fronted, having frontage along both Dale Street and Alta Vista Drive, which type of parcel/lot is not common in Roseville. And because this area is unique both in its history and in its limited geography, Planning Division staff does not believe that granting the requested variances in this case would set any precedence that would compel the City to approve variance requests that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 5.9 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: Although approving this variance would create a parcel that has less width and square footage than the Code requires, the majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity of the current proposal also fail to meet minimum standards. The Community Development Staff has determined that variance to lot dimension and area requirements, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. 5.10 City Code §1004.O1A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) limits all single residential parcels to a maximum total impervious coverage of 30% of the overall parcel area. The existing driveway and principal structure represents about 2,350 square feet of impervious surface area; the proposed 8,200-square-foot Parcel B would allow up to approximately 2,460 square feet. The proposed Parcel A would allow up to 2,310 square feet of impervious coverage. Detailed measurements must be provided with applications for building permits, so compliance with impervious coverage requirements will be addressed at that time. 5.11 Finally, information about the size of the existing parcel differs from one source to another. The applicant's survey indicates that the property is 12-13 feet deeper than is indicated by the property information on file at Ramsey County and the City of Roseville. This application is being analyzed and presented using the most restrictive data available, PF07-060 RPCA 110707 --� ^, Page 4 of 6