My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0923_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0923_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 1:49:58 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:48:40 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.
/
318
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
6.3 State Statute 462.357, 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 be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances <br />unique to the properiy not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not <br />alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not <br />constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the properiy exists under the terms of <br />the ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions <br />in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect" <br />6.4 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: <br />A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if� used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls: The Grahams current situation <br />would a11ow an 8 foot encroachment under the Setback Permit process. However, <br />because of the design of the rooms and the placement on the site an addition of <br />only 8 feet does not provide adequate space for a bedroom, nor living room <br />improvement. The Community Development Staff has determined that the <br />property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the official controls. <br />B. The plight of� the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not <br />created by the landowner: The Graham property (site/structures) is unique in <br />that it is one of a few with a predominant setback of 40 feet versus a setback of 30 <br />feet as is required today. This being the case, it becomes difficult to construct <br />reasonable and livable space onto the existing home without an approved <br />deviation (variance) from the City. The Community Development Staff has <br />determined that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique <br />to the property not created by the landowner. <br />C: The variance, if � granted, will not alter the essential character of � the locality: <br />The improvements proposed though may not be considered normal for a 1950's <br />home, bur are standard in today's society. Specifically, homes built today include <br />certain amenities such as larger kitchen/family area, multiple bathrooms, formal <br />dining room, and master bedroom suites. The design proposed for the Graham <br />home will not be out of character or context of a home from the mid to late <br />1950's. The Community Development Staff has determined that this <br />variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor <br />adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or <br />adjacent properties. <br />PF3422 • RCA 092302 • Page 3 of4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.