My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03532
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3500
>
pf_03532
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:04:58 PM
Creation date
6/29/2005 10:27:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3532
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2874 DELLWOOD ST N
Project Name
DIANNE M PECK
Applicant
DIANNE M PECK
Status
Approved
PIN
032923420040
Date Final City Council Action
10/20/2003
Date Final Planning Commission Action
10/1/2003
Planning Files - Resolution #
10159
Additional Information
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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 />5.3 Because this parcel is a comer lot, the same setback and building line is imposed adjacent <br />to the front property line as on the side yard adjacent to a street. Given this, the Peck <br />proposal is required to receive a 16 foot variance from both 1004.01A7 and 1004.02D4 <br />of the City Code for the proposed detached garage. <br /> <br />5.4 In October 2002, a similar proposal was requested by Mr. Mike Strub, 1275 Burke Street, <br />which approval granted a 25 foot variance from these sections of the City Code allowing <br />a detached garage to be located 5 feet from the property line adjacent to Dellwood Street <br /> <br />5.5 The proposed improvement to the Peck parcel attempts to meet the goals and objectives <br />of the Housing Plan. Specifically, the Housing Plan encourages reinvestment into <br />existing housing to provide increased functionality to retain families within the <br />community to maintain a quality neighborhood. The proposed detached accessory <br />building would complement the existing home and provide shelter for vehicles and other <br />seasonal items. <br /> <br />5.6 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships <br />in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city <br />council shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, <br />to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof <br />and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the <br />public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice <br />done. <br /> <br />5.7 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their <br />strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to <br />the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when <br />it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br />the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a <br />variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used <br />under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due <br />to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the <br />variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic <br />considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance.... The board or governing body as <br />the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure <br />compliance and to protect" <br /> <br />5.8 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: <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 Peck parcel is afforded a location <br />option that does meet the 30 foot required setback, but this location would occupy <br />most of the rear yard of the parcel diminishing use of the yard and require <br />additional paved area adding to the parcel's impervious coverage. The garage <br /> <br />PF3532 - ReA 102003 - Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.