pf_03615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.6 In the Code states moo Where there are in the way out the of the of the Variance Board shan have the a specific case and 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 safety, and general welfare be secured and substantial justice 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 win 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, win 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". 5.8 The property in Question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by 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 Bjornnes proposal, the home was constructed in 1977 and most likely under a different set of lot dimensional standards than today's Code. The undersized lot (9,706 sq. ft.) compared to today's standard (11,000 sq. ft.) limits the applicant's abilities to improve any aspect of if adds more 212 ft. City Planner has concluded it is not reasonable to require only a 212 sq. ft addition because such a requirement is short sighted and limits design flexibility to meet applicant needs. The City Planner has determined that it is reasonable to support an increase of 468 sq. ft. in impervious coverage which could support a 680 sq. ft. office and bathroom addition. The Staff has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a VARIANCE Section 1004.01A6 is granted. PF3615_RVBA~120104.doc- Page 3 of3