2015_0415_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, intends to announce and memorialize its findings and conclusions regarding said appeal. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon all submitted written reports, correspondence, visual aids, and any other portion of the written record contained within the official meeting agenda packet, all of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if set forth in its entirety, together with any and all oral testimony and evidence offered and recorded at public hearing on April 6, 2015, the Roseville City Council, acting in its capacity as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, declares the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L City staff provided the property owner with advance notice of the City's inspection process. 2. City staff provided the property owner with advance notice of typical property violations that may be uncovered in the City's inspection process. 3. Each of the property owner's buildings were inspected and evaluated by City staff on their own merits. 4. City staff has taken no action against the property owner's property outside of the express provisions of the City Code. 5. City staff provided the property owner with a clear recitation of discovered violations. 54 6. Even if the Board removed the discovered violations to which the property 55 owner's have objected, the property classification would still not be elevated 56 above City staff's determination. 57 7. Many cited violations, particularly those regarding trash debris, have been known 58 and on-going on the property owner's property for years, which undermines the 59 property owner's assertion of diligent clean-up efforts. 60 61 62 63 8. City Code provides a clear process through which the property owner can improve the property's classification. 9. The property owner's properties were inspected and classified consistent with all other inspected properties within the City. 64 10. Given the consistent application of inspection and classification processes for all 65 properties in the City, providing an exception to this property owner would be 66 inappropriate. 67 11. Unique cultural challenges do not provide a basis for an exemption to the 68 corrective safety and blight purposes of the City Code. 69 70 71 72 12. Energy efficiency undertakings to not provide a basis for an exemption to the corrective safety and blight purposes of the City Code. 13. City staff applied objective and quantifiable criteria and methodologies to evaluate and classify the property owner's property.