2006_0925_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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