pf_02042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Centennial United Methorlist Church, Case No. 2042 Page 3 Enginee,jng Consjderations The Engineering Departr;;ent ff'quest(.d a copy of the dra!f\age pi en for the site. The)' havf) received a draj"age plan and t-.ave concluded that it functic'Is adequately. The Er.gim~ering Derartment'~ review also no tee. that a sidewalk is needed aiong Ccur.ty R.oad C-2 and that the churdl's paving actually goes sllgntly be:'ond the p;operty line on the west side of th~ lot. Policy ConsideratiQns The sir.gl~, most important characteristic of a cDmrnullity's zar.ing administratiQn program is consistency. Whenever yo~ conternplat~ " .equest for a variance, you shouid be prepared to grant another property owner equal treatment under similar ci;-cumstances. Zoning Ordinance Refel'en~es Nom:onforrni!1g use!>: Sec~ion 11.010 Definition Se{;tior: B.020 Existing Structure o. Uses Varia~es: Section ~2.040 VariancE!S for Hardship 4. CONC:""USION The Centennial United Methcdist Church is a long timt< and valued part of the Roseville community. The churcl-.'s reinvestment in i~s property is biJth good for the church a;,d ult:mate!y gl)od for the neighborhood and the community. ThE! church is 6150 an existing nonconforming us;.; that made modifications to its property in violation of the City Code and is now aslc.ing the City to sanction this activity because: 1) work would ....ot have been done if it was known that per:nit was required; and 2) there i$ not 3 budget for the expense of construc:tir,g the ;:>arklng lot and site iJ!an to meet current Code req:.irements. In your denberation of this matter YOiJ should consid~r how you would feel jf the applicant were the owner cf an office ouildi~g, apart:nent, or retail business. In fairness, the nature of the use should not "Hect ;-'01': dp("'i~in". While we )1'1 no way doubt the applicanl's sincerity and ad:nowledge the practical difficulties thal (he church faces in this matter. we are nonetheless ccmcerned about thE' precedent that would tJt~ established by sin,ply granting the requested vananc~s in this case. Neit!-'~r ignorance uf City requirements, nor financial ('O!,sirierations alone should be dee;ned adequate justification for a varia;)ce. Rather, we re~ommend that the Planning Comr:1ission and Cit.y Council ccnsid~, attachir\g 3 condi t ion of son)!:: reasonable t.ime peri cd within which the church would come into compliance with Citv Code. This would aHow the cnurch time to budget for these expenses. It would al$O reflf'ct a policy of fair and equi!! trp.atmont for all a~pllcants ant1 furth",r l:1C p'Jlicy of bringing nonconforming properties 'Jp to cOOe when pjanning acti:Jn5 are :-equeslc:1.