My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03464
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03464
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:13:39 PM
Creation date
6/30/2005 2:43:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3464
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
970 TRANSIT AVE W
Project Name
ROLAND D & JUDITH C GISVOLD
Applicant
ROLAND D & JUDITH C GISVOLD
Status
Approved
PIN
112923240029
Date Final City Council Action
6/2/2003
Additional Information
ATTACHED GARAGE
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 />5.7 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in <br />the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council <br />shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary <br />any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may <br />impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, <br />safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. <br /> <br />5.8 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, <br />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 the <br />case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance <br />and to protect" <br /> <br />5.9 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 Gisvold home, given its current <br />configuration and location on the parcel, is unable to properly expand to <br />accommodate a two car garage expansion (increased footprint) without receiving <br />approval of a variance. Requiring a detached rear yard garage with a long <br />driveway or a double loaded single stall attached garage, most likely would <br />require at least one variance, and has been determined to be an unreasonable and <br />impractical option. The Community Development Staff has determined that <br />the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable use under the <br />official controls if a variance is 2ranted form Section l004.02DS. <br /> <br />B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the landowner: The Gisvold property (site/structure) is unique. It was <br />constructed before the Village/City established a zoning code and was placed in a <br />location that affords limited growth options. Family needs and designs of homes <br />and lots have dramatically changed in the past six decades, as have vehicle <br />designs, and in so doing have created certain conflicts with established codes of <br />older communities. However, design and directional placement of the proposed <br />attached garage could reduce variance impacts. The Community Development <br />Staff has determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances <br />unique to the property not created by the landowner. <br /> <br />PF3464 - ReA 060203 - Page 4 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.