My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03118
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03118
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:40:20 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:50:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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 />2. Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to <br />demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a <br />variance. Mr. Eggessa has not demonstrated a physical hardship or lack of <br />practical alternative. <br /> <br />3. Over the past two years the Planning Commission and/or City Council have <br />considered similar requests. Though each request is unique and has a different set <br />of circumstances, in the case of 1025 & 1027 Shryer Avenue, 2120 Cleveland <br />Avenue, 2207 County Road B, and 946 Burke Avenue, the requests were denied. <br />The Planning Commission and City Council have reiterated the City policy of not <br />approving variances for issues where physical hardship can not be demonstrated, <br />or in situations where practical alternatives are readily available which would <br />reduce or eliminate the need for a variance. There has also been concerns where <br />proposals for flag lots are introduced into neighborhoods with more conventional <br />lot sizes and setbacks. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of <br />Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a variance to reduce the <br />minimum lot width and the minimum lot square footage for the purpose of a minor subdivision <br />and proposed constructing of a single family residential home for property located at 1992 <br />Cleveland Avenue be denied. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member <br />Goedeke, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Wiski, Mastel, Goedeke, <br />Maschka and Wall and the following voted against the same: None. <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 9th day of August, <br /> <br />1999. <br /> <br />Resolution _ - Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.