My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03418
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03418
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:23:40 PM
Creation date
8/3/2005 1:09:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3418
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
592 Sextant Avenue
Project Name
Golie, Tim
Applicant
Golie, Tim
Status
Approved
PIN
122923230049
Date Final City Council Action
8/19/2002
Planning Files - Resolution #
10027
Additional Information
porch addition
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 />4.0 VARIANCE REQUEST BACKGROUND: <br /> <br />4.1 Section 1004.0lA6 of the Roseville City Code (Maximum Total Surface Area) affords <br />each residential property owner up to 30% impervious coverage on a lot/parcel, based <br />upon the total lot size. In the case of the Golie property this allowance cannot exceed <br />3,312 square feet without an approved variance. <br /> <br />4.2 The Golie home was constructed in 1997 and is situated on an 11,040 square foot lot. <br />The home/garage has a footprint estimated at 2,020 square feet; the driveway and rear <br />patio/basketball court area is estimated at 1,514 square feet. Given these current site <br />conditions the Golie lot has a current impervious coverage of 3,535 square feet or 32%. <br /> <br />4.3 The proposed home porch addition of370 square feet creates a total impervious coverage <br />of 3,934 square feet or 36%. <br /> <br />5.0 STAFF COMMENTS/FINDINGS: <br /> <br />5.1 The Golie home was constructed (1997) prior to the text amendment to Section 1004 <br />that established the 30% impervious coverage requirement. The Goile's are now faced <br />with needing a variance in order to expand their home to meet their needs/desires (see <br />attached narrative). <br /> <br />5.2 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the <br />way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council shall <br />have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such <br />provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such <br />additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and <br />general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. <br /> <br />5.3 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, if <br />granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations <br />alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms of the ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be may <br />impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" <br /> <br />PF3418 - ReA 081902 - Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.