pf07-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� ,-. 1 means the properry in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under 2 conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to 3 circumstances unique to the properry not created by the landowner, and the variance, if 4 granted, will not alter the essential character of the localiry. Economic considerations 5 alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the properry exists 6 under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may 7 impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect. " 8 5.7 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions 9 allowed bv the official controls: Community Development staff cannot find that the 10 property owner faces an undue hardship in this case and, consequently cannot recommend 11 that the variances be approved. Given the above history, however, staff believes that 12 approving the creation of the proposed substandard lots is consistent with the City's � 3 application and enforcement of Code requirements in this area. And while it would be 14 within the purview of the City Council to deny the requested variances for lack of 15 hardship, such a denial would not necessarily advance the purpose and intent of the 16 zoning ordinance. In its discussion of a hardship that would warrant the approval of a 17 variance, however, the Planning Commission found that the hardship was created by a 18 combination of the following facts: � 9 a. Other parcels of similar or smaller size have existed in the immediate vicinity 2o since the area was platted in 1876; 21 b. Other parcels of similar or smaller size have been created with and without the 22 necessary variances since 1971; and 23 c. This minor subdivision was approved in 1986, since which time the minimum lot 24 size and area requirements have not changed. 25 The Planning Commission has determined that the property can be put to a 26 reasonable use under the official controls if the VARIANCE request is approved. 27 5.8 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the propertv not 28 created bv the landowner: Again, while a strict hardship may be absent in this case, the 29 fact that the City Council has approved similar subdivisions under the same Code 30 requirements - with and without variances - gives the applicant the reasonable 31 expectation that this request would again be approved. Specific uniqueness of this parcel 32 is the fact that it is double fronted, having frontage along both Dale Street and Alta Vista 33 Drive, which type of parcel/lot is not common in Roseville. Moreover, the 34 reconfiguration of Dale Street long after these lots were platted created the double- 35 frontage condition; if both Alta Vista Drive and Dale Street were part of the original plat, 36 it seems likely that the double-frontage lots would have been avoided from the start. 37 Because this area is unique both in its history and in its limited geography, the Planning 38 Commission does not believe that granting the requested variances in this case would set 39 any precedence that would compel the City to approve variance requests that are 40 inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning 41 Commission has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances 42 unique to the property not created by the landowner. 43 5.9 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: 44 Although approving this variance would create a parcel that has less width and square PF07-060 RCA 112607 Page 4 of 6