My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03494
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03494
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:29:51 PM
Creation date
3/14/2006 9:02:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3494
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1137 COUNTY ROAD B2 W
Applicant
Norman Gregg
Status
Approved
PIN
102923140056
Date Final City Council Action
6/21/2003
Planning Files - Resolution #
10115
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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 /> <br />public health, safety, and <br />done. <br /> <br />5.5 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 />5.6 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: <br /> <br />The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be <br />put to a reasonable use if the official controls were followed. However, Mr. <br />Gregg has a few options that would reduce the variance. First Mr. Gregg <br />could eliminate the concrete on the east side of the home, estimated at 132 <br />square feet. Next, Mr. Gregg could reduce the size of his concrete patio, <br />currently estimated at 330 square feet. Lastly, Mr. Gregg could reduce the <br />size of the proposed accessory building (storage building) to 20 feet by 24 feet <br />(480 sq. ft.) or 22 feet by 20 feet (440 sq. ft) and reduction of 48 and 88 sq. ft <br />respectively. In total, Mr. Gregg could reduce the impervious coverage from <br />a requested 3,761 sq. ft to at least 3,500 square feet (267 sq. ft. variance or <br />2.7%). ReQuirin2 modifications to the existin2 site conditions would reduce <br />impervious covera2e impacts. which in this case seems reasonable and <br />practical. <br /> <br />The City Planner has determined that the property can be made more <br />livable, useful, and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if a <br />variance not exceeding 377 square feet is granted. <br />B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the landowner: <br /> <br />It appears that all site improvements were in place prior to the 1999 Code <br /> <br />PF3494 - ReA 072103 - Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.