pf_03781 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

their October 9, 2006 meeting in order to further review the staff reports and minutes of the Planning Commission, Variance Board and City Council regarding both the current variance request and the previous subdivision which established the subject property in 2005. 2.0 REVIEW of VARIANCE SOUGHT: 2.1 On July 14, 2006, the applicants (Charles Weleczki & Todd Iliffl applied for a variance allowing a front yard principal structure encroachment ranging from 2 to 15 feet into the 30 foot front yard setback area. The requirements of the Front Yard Building Setback are iterated in § 1004.016 of the Roseville City Ordinances. 2.2 §1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements — Front Yard Building Setback) requires a minimum front yard principal structure setback of 30 feet. A review of the City's On-Line Mapping technology reveals most homes have been constructed at a 90 degree angle to the front property line/street in such a manner to afford greater use, and as such most comply with the 30-foot front yard setback requirement. However, there are a few homes in the area that were not constructed at the 30-foot setback. 1821 Dale Court lies approximately 21 feet from the front yard property line; 1810 Alta Vista lies approximately 15 feet from the front yard property line; and 1827, 1836, and 1844 Alta Vista lie approximately 22 feet from the front yard property line. Staff is only aware of a variance granted to the 1810 Alta Vista property. 3.0 REVIEW of VARIANCE CRITERIA: 3.1 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done." 3.2 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. `Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if 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 fmpose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect". PF3781_RCA_Appeal_100906Page 2 of �