My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03651
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3600
>
pf_03651
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:41:17 PM
Creation date
4/18/2007 9:50:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3651
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2216 DRAPER AVE
Applicant
James Seabloom
Status
Approved
Date Final Variance Board Action
8/3/2005
Planning Files - Resolution #
21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 /> <br /> <br />intent <br />necessary so that the public <br />substantial justice done. <br /> <br />5.5 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for city to "hear <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 <br />it is demonstrated that such actions will be keeping with the spirit and intent <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 <br />property exists under the terms ofthe 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 The property in Question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls: In general one can conclude that "reasonable use" can <br />be achieved with most variance requests. However, it is difficult to place an accessory <br />structure on the property without reducing the usable area of the rear yard. the <br />home, constructed in 1956, lies approximately 22 feet from the property line adjacent to <br />Rosedale Drive, which location is pre-existing non-conforming to the current Code <br />requirement of 30 feet. An addition to the principal structure along same <br />(that does not encroach closer to the property line) could be completed without a <br />variance. But the construction of a detached accessory structure requires a 30 foot <br />minimum setback, even though the front yard is currently at 22 feet. The Seablooms <br />desire to convert the existing attached garage into living area, eliminating possible issues <br />with fumes from gas cans, vehicles and other yard equipment items from entering the <br />home. The City Planner has determined that the property can be put to a <br /> <br />PF3651_RVBA_080305- Page 3 of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.