pf_03431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.5 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" 5.6 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The parcel in question could not be developed if strict enforcement of Section 10 16.l6A were applied. The parcel has an estimated width of 68 to 78 feet (north to south) and setback requirements of 50 feet from the wetland and 10 feet from the interior lot line. This leaves approximately 8 to 10 feet to construct a home. The wetland will serve a greater purpose and become an asset to the surrounding neighbors if it is improved and the parcel will provide greater value to the adjacent homes and enhance a vacant minimally maintained property. Based on our analysis of the situation the Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a variance is granted. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The parcel was created prior to the Wetland Conservation Act, which established criteria and regulations for development or properties adjacent identified wetlands. Specifically, this Act established the 50 foot setback the Roseville City Code requires. However, the City Code does not differentiate wetland types and this wetland barley meets wetland standards. The applicants purchased the parcel with the understanding that it could be reasonably developed with a single family residential home. A recent survey and subsequent wetland delineation determined this to be different. The applicants pursued options with the Rice Creek Watershed for filling a portion of the wetland and improving its look and function, and the City Planner for development options. The Community Development Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner (Wetland Conservation Act, type of wetland, and with no ability to develop home on parcel). PF3431 - ReA 102102 - Page 3 of 5