My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03264
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03264
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2007 10:23:51 AM
Creation date
12/9/2004 7:01:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3264
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
3062 WEST OWASSO BLVD
Applicant
David Kenney
Status
Approved
Date Final City Council Action
10/23/2000
Planning Files - Resolution #
9827
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 />4.0 POLICY REFERENCE <br /> <br />4.1 The Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Housing Improvement Plan encourage <br />reconstruction and upgrading of residential structures (and neighborhoods) throughout the <br />community. <br /> <br />5.0 ST AFF RECOMMENDA TION/EST ABLISH FINDINGS <br /> <br />5.1 has reviewed the merits of the front yard setback variance to allow the Kenney's to <br />proceed with their detached garage replacement and study addition. Staff has concluded <br />that there are unique circumstances present on or effecting the parcel and recommends <br />approval of the request. <br /> <br />5.2 Staff suggests the Commission use an outline of the following possible findings to <br />determine whether the Commission finds an "undue hardship" significant enough to <br />recommend approval of a variance by the City Council. <br /> <br />a. The hardship situation was not (was) created by the applicant (Kenney's) or <br />existed prior to the applicant... <br /> <br />b. The uniq ue physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a <br />variance include... <br /> <br />C. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include... <br /> <br />d. The alternative designs that allow use ofthe site but do not require a variance <br />include,. , <br /> <br />e. The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create <br />significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare <br />including.. . <br /> <br />f Other findings deemed appropriate by the Planing Commission... <br /> <br />6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br />By motion, and with findings, recommend approval (or denial) of the proposed variance. <br /> <br />Prepared by: Thomas Paschke (490-2236) <br /> <br />Attachments: Property location map; aerial photo; site plan; and narrative. <br />60-day Time Limit: Application received September II, accepted on September 14; Decision deadline is November <br />11,2000, <br /> <br />Xc: MnDNR - Joe RichIeI' <br />\\Victoria\ComIl1Dev\Planning Filcs\3264_Kenney David\RPCA (IOIIOO),doc <br /> <br />PF3264 - RPCA (101100) Page 3 of3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.