My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001_0723_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2001
>
2001_0723_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 12:45:49 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:38:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
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.
/
218
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
3.3 Mr. Root currently has an attached garage that is 24 feet by 28 feet (672 sq. ft.) and a <br />principal structure footprint that is 1,472 square feet in size. Based on these <br />determinations, Mr. Root is allowed accessory buildings not to exceed 1,472 square feet <br />(Section 1004.O1A5). <br />3.4 Section 10 13.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to <br />demonstrate that no practical alternatives e�st that would reduce the need for a variance. <br />3.5 Variances may be granted where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the <br />ordinance would cause "undue hardship". The granting of a variance sha11 only occur <br />when it can be demonstrated that such an action will be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance. <br />3.6 "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting a variance means the properiy <br />in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the <br />official controls, the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />properiy not created by the land owner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the locality. Specifically to this request: <br />A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if � used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls: The Community Development Staff <br />has reviewed the official controls of the City for its potential impact on the <br />subject accessory building request and determined that: <br />1) Requiring an accessory structure to be placed in accordance with the City <br />Code (a minimum of 200 feet) would require the removal of numerous <br />trees and placement of pa�ement covering a large portion of the front of <br />the house. This requirement is unreasonable especially when considering <br />the location of the majority of homkin the area. Except for those homes <br />directly north and south, most homes are located on standard lots with <br />average 30-foot setbacks. Section 1004.O1E would require only maximum <br />principal structure setback requirement of 40 feet. <br />2) The maximum height requirement of 15 feet would not limit Mr. Root in <br />his desire for a 624 square foot accessory building. However, the design <br />affords the structure natural lighting (clearstory) that requires additional <br />height. A clearstory is more practical and requires less maintenance that <br />roof mounted skylights. <br />B. The plight of � the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the land owner: The Community Development Department has <br />determined: <br />PF3320 RCA (072301) Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.