Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Tuesday, June 27, 2000; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to demonstrate <br />that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. <br /> <br />2. Due to the City's Pavement Management Program and the reconstruction of Grandview <br />Avenue, Mr. McCann was required to apply for a variance ifhe wanted to keep his <br />driveway in its current location. <br /> <br />3. Requiring the driveway access point to be adjusted in any capacity would require <br />unnecessary and costly modifications to the existing driveway as it extends to the garage <br />and would major disturb a large portion of the front yard. <br /> <br />4. The proposed variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or <br />general welfare, provided standards/conditions are attached to insure that redevelopment <br />of the site is completed in accordance with the plans proposed by the applicant. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") ofthe City of <br />Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a variance to reduce the <br />driveway access point (apron) setback from 30 feet to 18 (12 foot variance) for the purpose of <br />allowing the existing driveway location for property located at 658 Grandview Avenue be approved. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Kysylyczyn, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Goedeke, <br />Wiski, Mastel, Maschka and Kysylyczyn <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />2 <br />