My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03236
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03236
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:03:27 PM
Creation date
12/9/2004 6:58:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 />5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />5.1 On July 12, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br />Reichenbach/Anderson variance and conditional use permit request. No citizens were present to <br />address the Commission on the variance/conditional use permit request. <br /> <br />5.2 The Commission indicated support of findings for a variance and stated concern about the <br />granting of a conditional use permit. Specifically, the Commission had reservations of approving <br />an accessory building that exceeded the rear yard allowance of 40 %. <br /> <br />5.3 The Planning Commission voted (6-1) to recommend approval of the variance request by Robert <br />Reichenback and Gail Anderson from Section 1004.01A13 of the Roseville City Code based on <br />the following findings: <br /> <br />A. There is a physical hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed the permitted <br />lot coverage. <br /> <br />B. The applicant did not create the hardship. <br /> <br />C. There is a unique physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, specifically the <br />narrow shape of the lot and requiring an extended length of driveway. <br /> <br />D. There is not a reasonable alternative design that could be accomplished without a variance. <br /> <br />E. Granting the variance would not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare of the <br />community. <br /> <br />F. Granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />G. The variance should be limited to an increase in the residential lot coverage from 30% to 39.5%. <br /> <br />5.4 The Planning Commission voted (7-0) to recommend denial of the request by <br />Reichenbach/Anderson for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached accessory building <br />greater than the allowable (40%) rear yard area on property located at 1858 Hamline Avenue, <br />based on the following: <br /> <br />A. The proposed use is not compatible with adjoining properties and is not consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />6.0 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />6.1 By resolution approve (deny) the request by Reichenbach! Anderson for a variance to Section <br />1004.01A13 ofthe Roseville City Code to allow an increase in impervious site coverage from <br />30% to 39.5%, for property located at 1858 Hamline Avenue, subject to the above indicated <br />findings by the Planning Commission and any additional findings by the City Council. <br /> <br />PF3236 RCA (072400) - Page 5 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.