My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf10-025
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2010
>
pf10-025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2015 1:50:42 PM
Creation date
7/17/2013 9:31:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
10-025
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
—, — <br />Attachment E <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Variance Board of the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 6th day of October 2010, at 5:30 p.m. <br />The following members were present: Chair Boerigter, and Members Best and <br />Gisselquist <br />and none were absent. <br />Variance Board Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />VB RESOLUTION NO. 88 <br />A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO §1004.16 (RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS) <br />OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE AT 1015 JUDITH AVENUE (PF07-030) <br />WHEREAS, the property owner, William Rodrique, has requested variances to City <br />Code § 1004.16 to allow principal structure encroachments into the required setbacks from street <br />rights-of-way; and <br />WHEREAS, the Variance Board has found that the existing residential dwelling <br />represents reasonable use of the property under the official zoning controls as anticipated by <br />State Statute and, therefore, that hardships are not present as required for the grant of a variance <br />from the strict requirements of the Roseville City Code; <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to deny the <br />requested variances. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Variance <br />Board Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: <br />Members <br />And voted against; <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.