pf_03075 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

/ ! ~ 1 & '0[ ~ November 18, 1998 City of RoseviUe Planning Commission 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Planning File #3075 Project Name: Coil Vari~ce and Minor Subdivision (Lot Split) .. Dear Commission Member: The above referenced variance to Roseville's minimum lot width and side-yard setback should be denied, as it does not meet the statutory requirements for a variance under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.357, subd. 6 -- the law covering powers granted to municipalities concerning appeals and adjustments to zoning ordinances. Variances require showing of "undue hardship" Minnesota law authorizes variances for special situations where strict enforcement of a zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship to a landowner. The situation must be unique and must not have been created by the landowner. The law envisions situations where odd-shaped lots, lot remnants and other physical constraints prohibit strict adherence to dimensional standards in a zoning ordinance. Economic hardship does not constitute "undue hardship" under the law. The law states: '''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 of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." No undue hardship is cited in the Coil Request and Planning File The Coil Request states "one home on one acre is not financally possible" as the physical hardship that makes this variance necessary. Even if true, this represents an economic hardship to a landowner who bought the property with the expectation of economic gain and does. not meet the statutory test for granting a variance. The lot is currently used for a single-family dwelling, as are many one-acre lots in.the area. The staff report, planning file #3075, makes no reference to any undue hardship. The report speaks to the effect of the action on the essential character of the area, which is only relevant once undue hardship has been proven. Based OD the above facts, we urge you to reject this request. Sincerely, ~~ "l(.-P~ ?f- 'if~ Deborah R. Pile John J. Flynn . 951 Shryer Ave. W. Roseville, MN 55113 Cc: Kim Lee, City Planner