Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.4 A fourth alternative is to do nothing to the Code. but simply enforce it more <br />stringently. Many cities have very few zoning setback variance cases because <br />the city policy is to interpret their zoning code "verbatim". Other cities have few <br />variances because they are newer cities with larger or wider lots that <br />accommodate the current housing sizes. <br /> <br />While this alternative may resolve the issue of consistency and maintaining the <br />status quo, it does impact property owners interest and opportunity to reinvest in <br />their properties. <br /> <br />3.0 Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />3.1 Staff recommends modifying the Code to use an administrative "setback permit" <br />process that reduces time and hearing costs, while adding flexibility needed to <br />respond to Roseville's livable community goals. <br /> <br />3.2 Staff recommends continuing this discussion of alternatives at the <br />September meeting, when an formal text amendment ordinance will be <br />available for the Commission and public to review. <br /> <br />4.0 SUQQested PlanninQ Commission Action: <br /> <br />Offer a motion to continue the hearing to the September 9, 1998 Planning <br />Commission meeting. <br /> <br />attached: <br /> <br />Memo (Welsch) 6/8/98 suggesting a setback permit process <br />Minor Variance Procedure and proposed regulations 7/8/98 <br />City Code and state statute excerpts <br /> <br />Prepared by: Dennis Welsch (490-2232) <br />C:\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\ZONING\MN-V AR.RPT <br /> <br />2 <br />