pf_03787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Associate Planner, Tim Kytonen from Rehbein Companies (the firm that produced the survey) noted that while he produced the lot survey, the "wetland" reference on the survey does not indicate a boundary, but instead was simply transferred from work produced by Schoell Madson, the surveyors responsible for producing the plat for the Planned Unit Development. 2.9 Dan Nikols of Schoell Madson, in a separate conversation, told the Associate Planner that the "wetland" indicated on the plat (Attachment G) is actually a generalized representation of standing water (a "wet [space] land") and not a delineated wetland boundary. 2.10 On October 2, 2006, Roseville property owner Mary Lou Mohn sent email correspondence to the Associate Planner, expressing her support of the staff's recommendation to deny the variance request. 3.0 REVIEW OF VARIANCE CRITERIA 3.1 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." 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 ezists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may impase conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect". 4.0 STAFF COMMENTS ON VARIANCE CRITERIA 4.1 The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: City staff was careful to insulate their considerations of "undue hardship" and "reasonable use" from subjective value judgments of how large a house should be. When this lot was improved, the home was built up to each of the setback lines, taking full advantage of the buildable area on the property. According to City records, the median floor area of homes in Roseville is about 1,425 square feet; the PF3787_RCA_Appeal_ 102306 Page 3 of 5