My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03377
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3300
>
pf_03377
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:56:56 PM
Creation date
6/3/2005 1:34:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3377
Planning Files - Type
Miscellaneous
Project Name
Minor Variance History
Applicant
City of Roseville
Status
Non-Active
Additional Information
1974 - 1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />2 December 1991 <br /> <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Roseville City Council and Planning Commission <br /> <br />John Shardlow; Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />Minor Variances <br /> <br />One of the topics for discussion at tonight's work session is the minor variance process. As part of <br />this discussion, I would like to review: <br /> <br />1) Variances generally; <br />2) Minor variances generally, as established in the Roseville Code; <br />3) Minor variances specifically, as they have been granted historically in the City; and <br />4) Potential courses of action. <br /> <br />I have attached for your review excerpts from the Roseville Code describing the standard variance <br />process and the minor variance process, from Chapter 12 of the Code. I have also attached a rather <br />lengthy summary of the legal foundation for variances from a textbook on planning and zoning law. <br />Although written by lawyers, with many case references and notes, the material is clearly presented <br />and easily followed, I believe, and provides an excellent primer on the subject. I will use many of <br />these ideas to assist in the discussion Monday night. <br /> <br />Rick Jopke has also prepared a summary of the hundreds of minor variances which have been <br />granted by the City, and will be prepared to discuss the results of that analysis. <br /> <br />It is our opinion, given the number and nature of these minor variances, that the standards in the <br />R-1 District have effectively been changed. Furthermore, this has been accomplished by means of <br />neighborhood approval and a staff committee, not by a thorough review and modification of the <br />Code by the Planning Commission and Council. We have discussed this with the City attorney, <br />who concurs with this view. <br /> <br />Basically, there are three options: <br />1) Keep the process as it is. <br /> <br />2) Modify the minor variance process to address specific concerns. <br /> <br />3) Abolish the minor variance process altogether, leaving in place the standard <br />variance process, and modifying the R-1 requirements to reflect current community <br />standards. <br /> <br />I will be prepared to discuss the ramifications of these options after we have had a chance to review <br />this material together. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.