2006_0925_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeal Letter to the City of Roseville September 15,2006 Page 4 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 �wel.fare may be secured and substantial justice done. Section 1013.02, Roseville City Code (emphasis supplied). In this case, the Applicants' application for the current setback variances made absolutely no mention of a variance based on "the hardships" of the situation. Rather, it was strictly based on the "practical difficulties" of building a traditionally styled and designed hoine on the uniquely shaped lot. Yes, a home can be built on this lot without any variances, but the unique design of such a home is off putting to potential buyers and would result in a uniquely designed and potential very odd appearing home. The unique structure of this parcel of land creates practical difficulties in the design of a home and the ability to sell or utilize the lot to build a l�ome. This situation is on all fours wiili tlze concept of practical difficulties. The Applicants are hard pressed to think of a situation more directly on point with meeting the practical difficulties standard of the Roseville City Code. No less than six (6) potential purchase agreements have fallen through on the lot because of the limitations the lot shape places on a standard honie design. In addition, the Applicants are advised by their real estate sales agent that there are several persons interested in building a home on this lot once the current application for variance is approved. When the Minor Subdivision was approved in 2005, the Planning Commission and the City Council specified that the "hardships being the responsibilities of tlie owner." `��e Council did not specifically state that the issues related to "practical difficulties" with the use of the lot were the responsibility of the owner, nor did tlie Council specifically dete�mi��e that future variances requested due to practical difficulties would be automatically denied. In this case City Staff has determined ti�at there are practical difficulties in the ability to i�nprove the lot wiil� a traditionally styled single family ho�ne and thus there exist practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the City Code regarding setbacks for this parcel. T�ere the City Council could have specifically said (�ust as the City Code very specifically states) that either "practical difficulties or hardshibs are the responsibility of the owner." It did not do so. It mentioned only one half of the specific parameters set forth in Section 1013.02 of the Roseville City Code. Therefore, the Council znay properly grant the Applicant's currently requested variance i3otwithstanding any language of the Resolution by which the Minor Subdivision was approved.