My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_0609_CCpacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2014
>
2014_0609_CCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:53:18 PM
Creation date
6/5/2014 1:38:57 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.
/
378
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
nine feet (or the building itself essentially erected on stilts), resulting in the floor of a <br />one-story retail building that is 11 feet above the adjacent street, "reasonable" use of <br />the property is effectively impossible without a variance. Planning Division staff <br />believes that the proposed retail redevelopment at the same grade as the existing <br />structure makes reasonable use of the subject property. <br />d. There are unique ci�cumstances to the property which were not created by the <br />landowner. Planning Division staff finds that the location and elevation of the <br />property with respect to the adjacent storm pond which receives storm water from a <br />large surrounding area are unique circumstances which were not created by the <br />present or prospective land owners. For this reason, Planning Division staff believes <br />that the property possesses the unique characteristics that justify the approval of the <br />requested vAluaNCE. <br />e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The <br />proposed redevelopment of the property would simply replace an existing general <br />retail and personal service use with a new retail building at essentially the same <br />grade. For this reason, the vA�uANCE, if approved, would not negatively alter the <br />character of the surrounding industrial area. <br />5.2 Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code explains that the purpose of a vAx�ANCE is <br />"to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties <br />applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the <br />extent intended by the zoning." The proposed development appears to compare favorably <br />with all of the above requirements essential for approving vAx�ANCES. Moreover, <br />redevelopment of the site at any low floor elevation below 921.26 feet would be <br />prohibited, and Planning Division staff believes that such a restriction represents a <br />practical difficulty which the valuaNCE process is intended to relieve. <br />5.3 Section 1017.17B (Low Floor Elevation Exceptions) allows for vAR�ANCES to the low <br />floor elevation requirements to be approved, provided that the structure built below the <br />minimum low floor elevation "is flood-proofed according to State and Federal standards <br />for floodplain areas." Because this is a requirement built into the Zoning Code, Planning <br />Division staff would not recommend including it as a condition of variance approval. <br />5.4 Section 1017.20 (Storm Water Variances) also allows for variances to the requirements <br />of the Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management chapter of the City Code more <br />generally. As it applies to the proposed vAluANCE, this section would merely stipulate <br />that an approval "shall not circumvent the general purposes and intent" of the chapter. <br />This requirement is consistent with the broader one addressed in paragraph S.lb above. <br />5.5 Roseville's Development Review Committee (DRC) met on April 10�' and 17tb to discuss <br />this application. In addition to the above comments pertaining to the zoning code, the <br />only other issue raised by the DRC pertained to the need for a liability waiver or other <br />indemnification of the City for flood damage, which is represented in the recommended <br />conditions of approval. <br />fi.O PUBLIC COMMENT <br />At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has received two phone calls <br />about the vA1uANCE request. One call was a simple inquiry about the proposal. The other <br />caller expressed concern about the fact that a properry across the street from the subject <br />parcel also stands to become an auto parts store, creating some undesired concentration <br />PF14-010 RVBA 050714 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.