My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2006_0925_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2006
>
2006_0925_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 2:22:04 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
303
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
4.2 State Statute 462357, 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 he in keepingwith the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. 'Undue hardship' as used in connectionwith 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 <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 he may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure <br />complianceand to protect", <br />STAFF COMMENTS O N VARIANCE CRITERIA: <br />43 The �li�ht of the landowncr is due to circumstances anictue to the nron�rlv not <br />created hv the landowner: Designing a home on this uniquely shaped parcel is a <br />ehallen�e and one that has not been able to be overcome by 6 ootential owneribuilders, <br />Though previous statements and the previous approval of the parcel were predicated on a <br />house design that could meet all required setbacks, the uniquely shaped parcel and its <br />required setbacks restrict design and functional use of the parcel for home/garage <br />purposes. The Plannin� Division has concluded that the ��ight of the landowner is <br />due to circumstances unique to the property, which uniqueness is better addressed <br />through the granting of a 15 foot front yard VARIACE. <br />4.4 The nrouertv in auestion cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed bv the official controls: The City Planner concludes that the required front yard <br />or rear yard setback is too restrictive to accommodate a fu7nctiozzally designed home of a <br />modest size on the parcel. The Planner has further concluded that a VARIANCE to the <br />required front yard setback of 15 feet would provide greater design flexibility and afford <br />the eventual purchaser enough latitude to construct a home and attached garage. The <br />Planning Division has concluded that the property can be put to a reasonable use <br />under the official controls if a 15-foot VAR.�ANCE to fj1004.016 (Residential <br />DimensionalRequirements — Front Yard Setback) is granted. <br />���.�-�R i �t��rk �pp��,l ll{��SO6P�� � �r ,� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.