pf_03785 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.7 Section 1013 of the Roseville City 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." 4.8 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 impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect". 4.9 The uronertv in Question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: In general one can conclude that "reasonable use" can be achieved with most variance requests. However, the allowance of a parking lot setback on the southern portion of the Walser parcel creates no adverse impact to the MNDOT property due to their allowance of parking through a negotiated lease. Further although parking has been at or over the property line since 1974, should MNDOT not renew the lease with Walser Automotive Group, the proposed paved parking lot area would be removed form the MNDOT property and to a minimum distance of 5 feet from the property line (Code requirement) and the installation of a concrete curb would be required. Therefore, in order to support the continuation of vehicle parking on leased MNDOT land and a continuous parking lot there appears to be no reasonable alternatives supported by the Code without a VARIANCE. The Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a 5 foot side yard parking lot setback VARIANCE is granted. 4.10 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the proqertv not created bv the landowner: Having a lease to park vehicles on MNDOT land is a unique circumstance which is compounded by the fact the pre-existing conditions have supported such an allowance since 1985 or earlier. The VARIANCE sought poses no impact to adjacent Roseville business and is supported by the fact that MNDOT has allowed vehicle parking on their land south of the Walser parcel. The Planning Division has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. PF3785_KVBn_0090606.doc Page 3 of 3