pf_03794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� 5.8 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." 5.9 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". 5.10 The propertv in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: All owners of this property since the house was built in 1954 have been able to make use of the sloping driveway in its current configuration, although probably with great difficulty during the winter months. Given the obvious hazards that arise whenever vehicles slide uncontrollably into the street, the public interest would appear to be best served by facilitating a reduction of the offending slope. Constructing a new garage directly beneath the existing one could accomplish that goal (if it is, in fact, structurally possible), but it would require much more excavation than what is proposed. An extension of the building toward the street, then, seems to be the most reasonable way to construct an attached garage at a grade that more closely matches the street level. And while the proposed 28-foot depth may exceed that of an average garage by about 4 feet, the proposed 20-foot width (constrained in part by the narrow, 50- foot lot) is about 4 feet narrower than an average garage. Therefore, there appear to be no reasonable alternatives to the proposed garage redevelopment that can be supported by the Code without a VARIANCE. As to the proposed living area above the garage, Community Development staff has a few additional comments. The existing house has a combined living room/dining room, and the top floor of the proposed addition would allow more generous space for those rooms. The second level of the addition would provide space for more bedrooms and perhaps an additional bathroom. City policies support the improvement of existing houses to allow residents and families to continue living in Roseville as their need for space changes; the proposed living area above the garage is both consistent with these policies and an efficient use of the space created by the reconfiguration of the garage/driveway. The Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the VARIANCE is granted. PF3794_RVBA_ 110106 Page 3 of 5