pf_03787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.8 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 ezists 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". 5.9 The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: According to City records, the median floor area of homes in Roseville is about 1,425 square feet; the existing house has a total livable area of about 3,300 square feet — 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. That is, the property will remain economically viable in the marketplace under the requirements imposed by the City Code. 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. 5.10 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 was preserved between the existing structure and the required 50-foot setback from the original wetland boundary. The applicant is the original homeowner and as such has been aware of the wetland since the home was constructed; it is a property owner's responsibility to be aware of legal restrictions pertaining to his/her property, as they are an integral part of the property itself. While the location of the wetland and the required setback line are not under the control of the applicant, the build-able area on the lot (i.e., the required setback from the original wetland) has not changed since the property was improved even though the wetland has increased in size as a result of its use as a storm water retention pond. The Planning Division has determined that, while the circumstances are unique to properties in this area, the landowner faces no plight with respect to the current application because the original practical and legal conditions on the property have not rendered the property less viable. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of this report, the Planning Division recommends denial of 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: PF3787_RVBA_100406 Page 3 of 4