My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0428_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0428_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2011 1:53:29 PM
Creation date
10/21/2011 1:28:11 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
283
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5.2 An option, though not a practical solution, could be to construct a second story. <br />However, this addition would entail major architectural design and engineering, <br />inconvenience, and added cost. A second story also does not address existing rooms and <br />their limited size compared to current standards. <br />5.3 Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that there are no reasonable options <br />available to Voermans and that reducing or eliminating the proposed sidewalk would tape <br />away from the character and usefulness of the home. <br />5.4 Section 10 13. o states: where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the <br />way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code} the city council shall <br />have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such <br />provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such <br />additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and <br />general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. <br />5.5 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to `'hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in beeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances <br />unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not <br />alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not <br />constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of <br />the ordinance.... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions <br />in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect'' <br />5.6 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: <br />A. The property in question cannot be past to a reasonable use is f used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls: The Voermans dome and site is <br />unable to reasonably expand to meet their growing needs without a variance due <br />to parcel coverage restrictions. Requiring modifications from the proposal tape <br />away from the character and usefulness of the home and site. The Community <br />Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more <br />livable and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a variance is <br />ranted. <br />PF346 — RCA 042803 ® Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.