pf07-030 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-� -- 5.5 The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: Despite the applicant's willingness to reduce the size of the proposed addition in response to his neighbors' concerns about the proposal, Community Development staff believes that the application has failed to meet the "hardship" test. Existing improvements on the property include a two-car, attached garage; an additional garage stall and more indoor storage area can be developed without the need for a variance. The Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the VARIANCE request is denied. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of this report, the Planning Division recommends DENIAL of Mr. Nordling's request for a 200-square-foot VARIANCE to the impervious coverage limits set forth in § 1004.01 A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) of the City Code. 7.0 SUGGESTED ACTION 7.1 ADOPT VARIANCE BOARD RESOLUTION 61 DENYING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE to Section 1004 of the City Code that would otherwise allow the proposed residential addition at 1689 County Road C2, based on the comments and findings of Section 5 of the project report dated July 1 l, 2007. 8.0 NEXT STEPS 8.1 The decision of the Variance Board is final unless an appeal is filed. The appeal period remains open for 10 days from the date of the decision, and an appeal may be made either by the applicant or by another Roseville property owner. 8.2 An appeal must be submitted in writing to the City Manager by NOON on July 23`d, 2007 for a hearing before the City Council. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd (651-792-7073) Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photograph C: Site photos D: Applicant narrative E: Site plans F: Draft of Variance Board Resolution #61 PF07-030 RVBA 071107 Page 3 of 3