pf_03787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

existing house has a total livable area of about 3,300 square feet — more than twice the average size and larger than 97% of the houses in the city. Because of the relative size (and value) of the existing house compared to others in the Roseville housing market, the property can be put to reasonable use as it currently exists. City Staff believes that strict application of the City Code will not prevent the property from being put to a reasonable use and, therefore, will not burden the property owner with an undue hardship. Thus, the Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the requested variance is DENIED. 4.2 The landowner has no plight that is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The existing improvements were constructed in compliance with Code requirements, but very little space (if any) was preserved between the residential structure and the required 50-foot setback from the wetland boundary delineated at that time. The applicant is the original homeowner and as such has been aware of the wetland and its related land use restrictions since the home was constructed. While the location of the wetland and the required setback line are not under the control of the applicant, the enforcement of the required setback from the wetland, as it was delineated at the time the home was built, is consistent with the property owner's original expectations of the developable area of the lot. The Planning Division has determined that, while the circumstances are unique to properties in this area, the landowner faces no plight if the original developable area on the property is not being . 5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 The Planning Division recommended that the Variance Board DENY Thomas McDaniel's request for a VARIANCE to § 1016.16 (Wetland Setbacks) of the City Code to allow a principal structure encroachment into the required setback from a wetland at 527 Owasso Hills Drive based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of the staff report dated October 4, 2006. 6.0 VARIANCE BOARD ACTION 6.1 On October 4, 2006 the Variance Board held the public hearing regarding the McDaniel request. At the meeting no property owners spoke in support of, or opposition to, the request. 6.2 Variance Board members asked questions of staff and the applicant to further understand the nature of wetlands and the proposed variance request. The applicant provided copies of additional surveys that apparently showed differing versions of wetland boundaries. 6.3 With respect to their positions on the variance request, the Variance Board members made the following comments taken from the draft meeting minutes: Commissioner poherty spoke in support of denying the request; opining that he took wetland setbacks very seriously; and further opining that he would find it hard to deny other neighborhood requests for a variance if this request were granted. Commissioner Boerigter noted that he took wetland setbacks seriously as well; however, he wanted to clarify that this was in actualiry a wetland; and opined that the addition of a four-season porch, as presented, may not have a huge impact on the existing wetland. Commissioner Boerigter recognized Commissioner poherty's concerns, and what was PF3787_RCA_Appeal_ 102306 Page 4 of 5