My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03781
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3700
>
pf_03781
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 12:34:14 PM
Creation date
7/3/2013 11:36:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3781
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
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
6. Consider the Appeal of the Variance Board's Action to Deny the <br />Request by Charles Weleczki & Todd Iliff for a Variance to § 1004.016 <br />(PF 3781) <br />Community Development Director John Stark reviewed the request and <br />Variance Board determination and DENIAL on a 3/0 vote, based on the <br />Variance Board's interpretation that the "hardship" was self-created and that <br />a deviation to the Code would not be characteristic of the adjacent <br />neighborhood; and the applicant's appeal to the City Council, pursuant to <br />City Code, Section 1014.04C. <br />Mr. Stark noted that the Planning Division had concluded that the allowance <br />of a fifteen foot variance would not alter the essential character of the <br />locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of <br />the City or adjacent properties. Mr. Stark further noted that the City had <br />approved the lot split by their previous action. <br />Discussion included sightline issues and perceptions; layout of Acorn Road; <br />ingress/egress for driveway; interpretations of changes to the character of the <br />neighborhood by allowing the variance; sources and review of several maps <br />of the subject property; the unique shape of the lot; and the marketability of <br />the lot at the present time without variance issuance. <br />Councilmember Pust noted past discussions at the Planning Commission, <br />during her tenure and at granting of the lot split, that there would not be <br />future consideration of variances to make the lot buildable as designed; but <br />the landowner would assume the risk in finding a house design that would fit <br />in with the unique shape of the lot. <br />Applicant, Todd Iliff <br />Mr. Iliff provided a history of the lot split, as documented with the <br />applicant's letter of appeal dated September 15, 2006, and included in the <br />staff report. Mr. Iliff reviewed the practical difficulties in meeting existing <br />setback requirements on the unique triangular-shaped lot; and highlighted <br />differences in the applicant's original request and staff recommendation for a <br />fifteen foot setback. <br />Mr. Iliff respectfully requested that the City Council, acting as the Board of <br />Adjustment and Appeals, reverse the decision of the Variance Board. <br />Additional discussion included consistency with the City's Comprehensive <br />Plan guidelines; landscaping and fencing restrictions; visibility and safety <br />issues; Purchase Agreements rescinded due to inability to build a traditional <br />home on the unique lot following prospective buyers' discussions with City <br />staff; and approval period for City Council review and subsequent action. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that the problems appeared to be with vision <br />concerns at the point of the yard; further opining that she was not supportive <br />of the original subdivision, knowing this would create an unbuildable lot. <br />Public Comment <br />Consider the Appeal of <br />the Variance Board's <br />Action to Deny the <br />Request by <br />Charles Weleczki & <br />Todd Iliff for a <br />Variance to § 1004.016 <br />(PF 3781) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.