Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~, ... <br /> <br />.r <br /> <br />3404260 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the <br />request on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, and recommended (6-0) approval of the request for <br />a 13 foot rear yard variance based on the following findings: <br /> <br />A. There is a physical hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed <br />the permitted 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, <br />specifically the 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 <br />vanance. <br /> <br />E. Granting the variance would not significantly impact the health, safety or general <br />welfare of the 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 <br />30% to 39.5%, allowing a 750 square foot garage. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received and considered the Planning <br />Commission's recommendation on Monday, September 25,2000; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council determined the Planning Commission's findings <br />for the variance a true and accurate basis for granting the requested variance. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City <br />ofRoseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a 13 foot rear yard <br />variance from Section 1004.02D of the Roseville City Code, allowing the replacement of a three <br />season porch 17 feet from the rear yard property line for property located at 1983 Cleveland <br />Avenue (PID # 172923140077) be approved. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Goedeke, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: <br />Maschka, Wiski, Goedeke, Mastel, Kysylyczyn; and, the following voted against the same: <br />None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />f), <br />L <br />