Laserfiche WebLink
variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. `Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the <br />variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic <br />considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as <br />the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure <br />compliance and to protect". <br />5.9 The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed bv the official controls: According to City records, the median floor area of <br />homes in Roseville is about 1,425 square feet; the existing house has a total livable area <br />of about 3,300 square feet — larger than 97% of the houses in the city. Because of the <br />relative size (and value) of the existing house compared to others in the Roseville <br />housing market, the property can be put to reasonable use as it currently exists. That is, <br />the property will remain economically viable in the marketplace under the requirements <br />imposed by the City Code. Thus, the Planning Division has determined that the <br />property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the requested <br />variance is DENIED. <br />5.10 The landowner has no qlight that is due to circumstances unique to the propertv not <br />created bv the landowner: The existing improvements were constructed in compliance <br />with Code requirements, but very little space was preserved between the existing <br />structure and the required 50-foot setback from the original wetland boundary. The <br />applicant is the original homeowner and as such has been aware of the wetland since the <br />home was constructed; it is a property owner's responsibility to be aware of legal <br />restrictions pertaining to his/her property, as they are an integral part of the property <br />itself. While the location of the wetland and the required setback line are not under the <br />control of the applicant, the build-able area on the lot (i.e., the required setback from the <br />original wetland) has not changed since the property was improved even though the <br />wetland has increased in size as a result of its use as a storm water retention pond. The <br />Planning Division has determined that, while the circumstances are unique to <br />properties in this area, the landowner faces no plight with respect to the current <br />application because the original practical and legal conditions on the property have <br />not rendered the property less viable. <br />6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />6.1 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of this report, the Planning <br />Division recommends denial of Thomas McDaniel's request for a VARIANCE to <br />§ 1016.16 (Wetland Setbacks) of the City Code to allow a principal structure <br />encroachment into the required setback from a wetland at 527 Owasso Hills Drive: <br />7.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: <br />PF3787_RVBA_100406 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />