pf10-025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� "` the property can be put to "reasonable use" as understood in State Statute, and cities have no grounds for approving a variance. 5.5 The property in question can be�ut to a reasonable use under conditions allowed by the official controls. Planning Division staff has determined that the existing residential dwelling represents reasonable use of the property under the official controls as anticipated by State Statute without the requested vAx�ANCE. Moreover, the property can be further improved, including limited expansions into required setbacks, through processes that are incorporated into the City Code as alternatives to variances and are not subject to the same "reasonable use" test. Based on these facts and the recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court, Roseville does not have the legal ability to grant the requested VARIANCE. 6.0 i.o STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of this report, Planning Division staff recommends denial of a vAR�ANCE to the front- and side-yard setback requirement established in §1004A16 of the City Code SUGGESTED ACTION ADOPT VARIANCE BOARD RESOLUTION 89 denying a VARIANCE to Section 1004 of the City Code, based on the comments and findings in this report. H.O NEXT STEPS 8.1 The decision of the Variance Board is final unless an appeal is filed. 8.2 The appeal period remains open for 10 days from the date of the decision, and an appeal may be made either by the applicant or by another Roseville property owner; an appeal must be submitted in writing to the City Manager by noon on October 18, 2010 for a hearing before the City Council. Prepared by: City Planner Bryan Lloyd (651-792-7073) Attachments: A: Area map C: B: Aerial photo D: E: Narrative Site plan Draft of Variance Board Resolution #89 PF 10-025 RVBA 100610 Page 3 of 3