My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008_0616_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2008
>
2008_0616_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2011 9:16:21 AM
Creation date
12/30/2011 9:04:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
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
8.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED VARIANCE <br />8.1 Section 1 005.01 (Business Parking Setbacks) of the City Code requires parking areas to <br />be set back at least 15 feet from a property line adjacent to a street right -of -way, whereas <br />the proposed parking area is only 5 feet from the property line adjacent to the Alta Vista <br />Drive /Dale Street right -of -way. <br />8.2 Section 1104.05 of the Code states: "Hardship: Where there are practical difficulties or <br />undue hardships In the way of carrying out the strict letter of the pro visions of this Code, <br />the y <br />C , t Council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and pu bllc <br />hearings, to var, y any y such pro vision in harmony with the general purpose and intent <br />thereof and may y Impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary y so that the <br />public health, safety y and general welfare may y ,be secured and su bstantlal justice done.. " <br />8.3 State Statute 402.357, subd. 0 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance In Instances where they strict <br />enforcement world 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 y In question cannot be prat to a reasonable use If used render <br />conditions alto wed by y the official controls, the plight of the ]an do weer Is due to <br />crcums tan ces unique to the propert, y not created by y the ]an do wner, and the variance, If <br />granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations <br />alone shall not constitute an undue hardship If reasonable use for the property y exists <br />under the terns of the ordinance ... The ,board or governing ,bod, y as the case may y ,be may <br />y <br />Impose conditions In the granting of variances to Insure compliance and to protect ". <br />8.4 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls: The applicant has experimented with different parking <br />lot configurations that met the setback requirements, but found that parking spaces would <br />have to be eliminated - possibly necessitating a different variance - and that the <br />incoming traffic would be routed close enough to the building entrance to be potentially <br />dangerous to the residents. The Planning Division has determined that the property <br />can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a VARIANCE is approved. <br />8.5 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by <br />the landowner: The unique conditions on this parcel relate to the fact that the eastern <br />property line is angled and that the property is bounded by unusually wide rights -of -way. <br />The property was created as part of the 1870 Asylum out Lots plat, but since staff has <br />been unable to locate a copy of the plat in City or County files no determination can be <br />made regarding whether this is the original shape of the property or whether additional <br />right -of -way was dedicated over time. But even though the proposed encroachment could <br />perhaps be eliminated by vacating some of the right -of -way, there would be no guarantee <br />that a vacation request would ultimately be approved or that all variance conditions <br />would be eliminated. The Planning Division has determined that the plight of the <br />landowner is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. <br />PF08 -017 RCA 061608.doc <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.