pf10-025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

S.O STAFF COMMENT AND FINDINGS 5.1 Section 1004.016 (Residential Setbacks) of the City Code requires homes to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from property lines adjacent to streets. The proposed frontward garage expansion would encroach to a point roughly 24 feet from the front property line and the proposed sideward expansion would stand about 16 from the property line adjacent to Aglen Street. As described in the applicant's narrative (included with this staff report as Attachment C) the proposed expansion would facilitate the relocation and proper venting of the laundry facility and help to correct the structural and drainage problems surrounding the existing garage. As problematic as the existing site conditions are, Community Development staff believes that all of the problems can be corrected through additions, re-grading, or other modifications that would not trigger the need for a VARIANCE. 5.2 Section 1013 of the 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. " 5.3 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 ". 5.4 Based on recent case law from the Minnesota Supreme Court (i.e., Krummenacher v City of Minnetonka), the City Attorney has advised Planning Division staff that Roseville is obligated to use a strict interpretation of the statutory language (cited above) authorizing variances. Cities across Minnesota had been increasingly lax in the interpretation of "reasonable use" in order to approve variances required to allow all sorts of seemingly "reasonable" residential improvements. But the Supreme Court's decision essentially reaffirms that variances exist only as a tool to provide relief to property owners when some unique circumstances on a specific property conspire with the zoning code to effectively prohibit the any/all "reasonable" use of the property. For example, if a parcel is intended and zoned for single-family residential uses but the zoning requirements somehow (accidentally) prohibit the construction of a single-family residence, a city could approve variances from some code requirements to facilitate a dwelling on that property. But if a property can be used for a single-family residence within the requirements of the zoning code (even if the owner would prefer something better), then PF 10-025 RVBA 100610 Page 2 of 3 --� --,