2006_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2.9 Dan Nikols of Schoell Mac�son, in a separate conversation, told'the Associate Planner that the "wetland" indicated on the plat (Attachment G) is actually a generalized representationof standing water (a "wet [space] land") and not a delineatedwetland boundary. 2.10 On October 2,2006, Roseville property owner Mary Lou Mohn sent email correspondence to the Associate Planner, expressingher support of the staffs recommendation to deny the variance request. 3.0 REVIEW OF VARIANCE CRITERIA 3.1 Section 1013 of the Roseville City Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after 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 health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done." 3.2 State Statute 462357, subd. 6(2) provides authorityfor the city to "hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance ir� 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 ques#aur� 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 consiitute 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". 4.0 STAFF COMMENTS ON VARIANCE CRITERIA 4.1 The property in question ��f be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: City staff was careful to insulate their considerations of "undue hardship" and "reasonable use" from subjective value judgments of how large a house should be. When this lot was improved, the home was built up to each o� the setback lines, tal{ing full advantage of the buildable area on the property. According to City records, the median floor area of ho�nes in Roseville is about 1,425 square feet; the existing house has a total livable area of about 3,300 square feet — more than twice the average size and larger than 97% of the houses in the city. Because of the relative size (and value) of the existing house compared to others in the Roseville housing market, the property can be put to reasonable use as it currently exists. City Staff believes that strict application of the City Code will not prevent the property Ffcm� being put to a reasonable use and, therefore, will not burden the property owner with an undue hardship. Thus, the Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use PF3787_RCA_Ap�eal_ 10230G Page 3 of 5