pf08-042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.-1 From: Bryan Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:19 PM To: Subject: variance request Hi again, David. 0 As you know, I've been working on the staff report pertaining to your variance application and, in the process, researching the history on your property. After reviewing your application and the additional information I've found with the City Planner and Community Development Director, we've determined that we (as City staff) cannot conclude that there is a hardship as required for approving a variance and therefore we aren't able to support your variance request. One of the reasons for this is that our historical research revealed a variance approval in 1981 which allowed the construction of the pool addition. On its own, this fact might not count for much, but in your narrative you indicate that the proposed sunroom is simply replacing the existing deck and that it would not really change the shape of the house; this is where the staff begins to disagree. Simply enclosing the space that is currently occupied by the existing deck (staff would consider this a"replacement") would only require a building permit, it would not really change the shape of the house, and could create a sunroom if coupled with some of the space in the pool addition. This is obviously not what you had in mind, but we staff inembers believe that this would be a way to create something of a sunroom out of the existing structure without requiring further deviation from the zoning regulations. As long as a code- compliant option seems to be available, staff cannot support a variance from the requirements of the City Code. Having said that, these are the options available to you: 1) You may provide more information about the circumstances on the property that constitute the necessary hardship. Staff does agree that the encroachment into the required setback along Dellwood Avenue would not be inconsistent with most of the other homes along that street. And while the approval of a variance would allow the Variance Board to require the mitigation of the marginal rain water runoff from the proposed (and existing) excess impervious coverage - which would be of some benefit to the City, staff cannot recommend that the variance be approved without being able to support your descsription of a hardship. 2) You may continue your request for the Variance Board to hear and decide on your application. I would still prepare a staff report for the members of the Variance Board, but the report would include staff's determination that there isn't a hardship that justifies approving the variance and (for that reason) the report would also include the recommendation that the Variance Board deny your request. 3) You may withdraw your request, in which case your application fee would be refunded. Please call me to talk about your questions or concerns and to let me know how you'd like to proceed. Bryan Lloyd Associate City Planner City of Roseville 651-792-7073 bryan.11oyd@ci.roseville.mn.us [Mr. Redish called the Associate Planner to discuss the preceding email. The conversation included additional discussion of what "hardship" means in the context of a variance request, examples of hardships that have been supported, possible home modifications that wouldn't require a variance, and structural limitations of the pool addition.]