pf_03606 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.7 In Section 1013 the states ..... Where there are practical difficulties or hardships in the of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions this code, the Variance Board shall have the in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary such 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. 5.8 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 shaH 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". 5.9 The property in Question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions aHowed bv the official controls: In general one can conclude that "reasonable use" can be achieved with most variance requests. However, Roseville has a number of parcels that were developed since the 1950's that met a different standard and the City Planner has taken strides (with the support of the Variance Board) to assist applicants in achieving their desires without creating great impacts. In the case of the Rehnberg the home was constructed in 1952 and most likely was without a garage for a number of years. However, when the detached accessory structure was built, it was placed in the rear yard, a standard placement of the 1950's and 1960's. This location (setback some 83 feet from the front yard property line) and the small lot (8,040 sq. ft.) by today's standards (11,000 sq. ft.) affect the abilities of the Rehnbergs to improve any aspect of their property if that improvement adds to the impervious coverage total. The City Planner has concluded it is not reasonable to place the detached accessory building closer to the home because it creates an unreasonable driveway design/access into the stmcture, and it is nearly impossible to attach the structure to the home without having to deal with costly stmctural design issues. The City Planner has determined that it is reasonable to replace the former detached accessory structure (garage) with the proposed 672 sq. ft. detached accessory structure (garage) and construct added driveway to properly access the structure. The Staff has determined that the property can be put PF3606 _ R VBA _110304.doc - Page 3 of 3