pf_03418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 VARIANCE REQUEST BACKGROUND: 4.1 Section 1004.0lA6 of the Roseville City Code (Maximum Total Surface Area) affords each residential property owner up to 30% impervious coverage on a lot/parcel, based upon the total lot size. In the case of the Golie property this allowance cannot exceed 3,312 square feet without an approved variance. 4.2 The Golie home was constructed in 1997 and is situated on an 11,040 square foot lot. The home/garage has a footprint estimated at 2,020 square feet; the driveway and rear patio/basketball court area is estimated at 1,514 square feet. Given these current site conditions the Golie lot has a current impervious coverage of 3,535 square feet or 32%. 4.3 The proposed home porch addition of370 square feet creates a total impervious coverage of 3,934 square feet or 36%. 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: 5.1 The Golie home was constructed (1997) prior to the text amendment to Section 1004 that established the 30% impervious coverage requirement. The Goile's are now faced with needing a variance in order to expand their home to meet their needs/desires (see attached narrative). 5.2 Section 1013.02 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 city council 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" PF3418 - ReA 081902 - Page 2 of 4