2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Appeal Letter to the City of Roseville September 15,2006 Page 4 provision in harmony with the general purpose aald intent thereof aald may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general �r�l�fa�� may be secured and substantialjustice done. Section 1013.02, Roseville City Code (emphasissupplied). 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 basc�. on the "practical difficulties" of building a traditionally styled aald designed home on �I�e 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 home. This situation is on all fours with the concept of practical difficulties. The Applicants are hard pressed to think of a situation n�or� 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 ho�ie 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." Tl.�� 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 determine that future variances requested due to practical difficulties wouldbe automaticallydenied. In this case City Staff has determinedthat there are practical difficulties in the ability to improve the lot with a traditionally styled si��g�e family home and thus there exist practical difficultiesin the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the City Code regardi�g setbacks for this parcel. Here the City Council could have specifically said (�us� as the City Code very specificallystates) that either "practical diffici�ltiesor hardshi� are the responsibilityof 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 '�� properly grant thc Applicant's currently requested variance notwithstanding any language of the Resolutionhy wla�ch the Minor Subdivision was approved.