pf_03252 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

10 G..tf I C)"o~'" CD EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 25th day of September 2000, at 6:30 p.m. The following members were present: Maschka, Wi ski, Goedeke, Mastel, Kysylyczyn and the following were absent: None Council Member Mastel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 9813 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO 1004.02D (DWELLING DIMENSIONS AND APPEARANCES AND HEIGHT, FRONTAGE, YARD AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS IN R-l DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1983 CLEVELAND A VENUE (PF 3252). WHEREAS, Susan Bruhn has requested approval of a variance to allow the replacement of an existing non-conforming three-season porch; and WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D requires a 30 foot rear yard setback for all principle structures; and WHEREAS, the three-season porch, if replaced, would be located 13 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, Ms. Bruhn purchased the home with the screened porch, not knowing the porch location did not conform to the Roseville City Code; and WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request on Wednesday, September 13,2000, and recommended (6-0) approval ofthe request for a 13 foot rear yard variance based on the following findings: A. There is a physical hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed the permitted lot coverage. B. The applicant did not create the hardship. C. There is a unique physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, specifically the narrow shape of the lot and requiring an extended length of driveway. D. There is not a reasonable alternative design that could be accomplished without a vanance. 1