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
Appeal Letter to the City of Roseville <br />September 15,2006 <br />Page 3 <br />MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PARAMETERS; <br />HARDSHIPS AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES <br />Members of the Variance Board raised concerns at the hearing on September 6, <br />2006 about the fact that a variance was now being requested despite the fact that "this <br />issue had been raised when the Minor Subdivision had been approved." The Applicants <br />wish to set the record straight regarding this issue. <br />There was some discussion at the original Planning Commission meeting in <br />August 2005 on the Applicants' request for a Minor Subdivision of the subject parcel <br />about the possibility of future variances. The Applicants had worked with City Planner <br />Thomas Paschlce regarding the issue and at Mr. Paschlce's suggestion, had hired an <br />architect to draw a site plan showing the layout or footprint of a"possible" design for a <br />house on the lot. A copy of that original site plan document is enclosed herewith. That <br />original site plan included a drawing of a house on the lot with a�ootpri��t that would <br />have required a variance from the front yard setback (essentially the same variance that is <br />being sought now). <br />At the Planning Commission hearing on August 3, 2005 and again at the City <br />Council hearing on .August 22, 2005, this issue was discussed and debated. Ultimately <br />the Resolution that was passedby the City Council stated as follows: <br />NOW TT-IEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of <br />Roseville, to approve an 892 s.f. VARIANCE to Section 1004.016 of the <br />Roseville City code for Todd Iliff and family to allow the creation of a 11,608 s.f <br />lot at 1828 Dale court, based on the findings in Section 5 of the project report, <br />finding that Parcel B is buildable even with its odd shape and the hardships are <br />the responsibilities� the owner, and subject to the conditions within Section 6 of <br />the project report dated August 22, 2005, including an additional condition: a <br />permit shall be required for �n�• fence regardless of height. Staff is to review <br />landscape plans at the tirne of the building permit. <br />(Emphasis in bold and italics Supplied). <br />The matter of the "hardships being tl�e responsibilities of the owner" seems to <br />have been the primary point of issue on which the Variance Board focused in denying the <br />Applicant's current request. As set forth below, this is contrary to the letter as well as the <br />spirit and intent of the Ciiy Council Resolution and the City Code. <br />The City Code states: <br />Where there arepractical difficulties r�� unusual hardships in the way of carrying <br />out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council shall have the <br />power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.