My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03320
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3300
>
pf_03320
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2007 12:17:57 PM
Creation date
12/9/2004 7:25:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3320
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2468 HAMLINE AVE N
Applicant
Douglas Root
Status
Approved
Date Final City Council Action
7/23/2001
Planning Files - Resolution #
9907
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
<br />3.3 Mr. Root currently has an attached garage that is 24 feet by 28 feet (672 sq. ft.) and a <br />principal structure footprint that is 1,472 square feet in size. Based on these <br />determinations, Mr. Root is allowed accessory buildings not to exceed 1,472 square feet <br />(Section I 004.0 lA5). <br /> <br />3.4 Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to <br />demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. <br /> <br />3.5 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the <br />ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance shall only occur <br />when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />3.6 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting a variance means the property <br />in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ifused under conditions allowed by the <br />official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />property not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the locality. Specifically to this request: <br /> <br />A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls: The Community Development Staff <br />has reviewed the official controls of the City for its potential impact on the <br />subject accessory building request and determined that: <br /> <br />1) Requiring an accessory structure to be placed in accordance with the City <br />Code (a minimum of200 feet) would require the removal of numerous <br />trees and placement of pavement covering a large portion of the front of <br />the house. This requirement is unreasonable especially when considering <br />the location of the majority ofhomlin the area. Except for those homes <br />directly north and south, most home's are located on standard lots with <br />average 30-foot setbacks. Section 1004.01E would require only maximum <br />principal structure setback requirement of 40 feet. <br /> <br />2) The maximum height requirement of IS feet would not limit Mr. Root in <br />his desire for a 624 square foot accessory building. However, the design <br />affords the structure natural lighting (clearstory) that requires additional <br />height. A clearstory is more practical and requires less maintenance that <br />roof mounted skylights. <br /> <br />B. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the land owner: The Community Development Department has <br />determined: <br /> <br />PF3320 RCA (072301) Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.