My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03488
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03488
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:29:23 PM
Creation date
3/13/2006 2:41:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3488
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
Address
2154 LEXINGTON AVE
Applicant
Muna Sabri
Status
Approved
PIN
142923220016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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 />H. There appears to be no impact on general health, safety, and public welfare. However, <br />the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control <br />A2enCY must be notified of the potential re-openin2. <br /> <br />L The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation (via the CUP process) <br />as a Business use, <br /> <br />5 A Conditions may be attached to the CUP that would mitigate the impact on adjacent properties <br />including such items as increased setbacks from property lines, landscape screening, <br />architectural color and design/materials details, drainage provisions, and limiting additional <br />exterior storage, <br /> <br />6.0 VARIANCE REVIEW: <br /> <br />6,1 Section 1013.02 states: Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in <br />the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, the city council <br />shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary <br />any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may <br />impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, <br />safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. <br /> <br />6.2 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for <br />variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the <br />individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance <br />means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if <br />granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations <br />alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms ofthe ordinance....The board or governing body as the case may be <br />may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to <br />protect" . <br /> <br />6.3 The existing property has many pre-existing non-conformities, some of which cannot be <br />corrected, and thus variances are necessary. The Community Development Staff has reviewed <br />the site and concluded the following: <br /> <br />PF3488 - RPCA 060403 - Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.