Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 27th day of June 2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: <br />and the following were absent: <br /> <br />Council Member <br /> <br />introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 703.04B(4) <br />OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE <br />FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 685 GRAND VIEW AVENUE. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 703.04B(4) of the Roseville City Code requires a minimum driveway <br />access point (apron) setback from a street comer of 30 feet; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Charles McCann, property owner, (hereinafter "applicant") of the lot at 685 <br />Grandview Avenue, has applied for a 12 foot variance to allow a reduction in the 30 foot required <br />setback that would enable him to retain his driveway and street access (apron) in its current location; <br />and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, The City's Pavement Management Program and the reconstruction of <br />Grandview Avenue have prompted the variance request; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br />on Wednesday, June 14,2000, and recommended (7-0) approval of the requested variance; and <br /> <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 />I <br />