My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03638
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3600
>
pf_03638
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:40:35 PM
Creation date
6/14/2006 8:55:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3638
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
Address
2824 LAKEVIEW AVE
Applicant
Russell Cattelan
Status
Approved
PIN
022923310037
Date Final City Council Action
5/23/2005
Planning Files - Resolution #
10303
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 /> <br /> CODE EXISTING PROPOSED VARIANCE <br /> REQUIREMENT CONDITION CONDITION <br />SECTION 1004.016 <br />REQUIRED SETBACKS <br />Front Yard 30 feet 21 feet 21 feet 19 feet <br />Side Yard 5 feet 36 feet 8 feet NONE <br /> <br />5.5 On February 20,1970 the Village of Roseville approved the Mogren's Subdivision that <br />created four lots which a created a shared private access drive to 2824 and 2812 <br />Lakeview Avenue. <br /> <br />VARIANCE REVIEW: <br /> <br />5.6 In Section 1013 the Code states ..... Where there are practical difficulties or unusual <br />hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this code, <br />the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and <br />public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose <br />and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers <br />necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and <br />substantial justice done. <br /> <br />5.7 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 (2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests <br />for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their <br />strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to <br />the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when <br />it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br />the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a <br />variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used <br />under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due <br />to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the <br />variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic <br />considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance....The board or governing body as <br />the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure <br />compliance and to protect". <br /> <br />PF3638_RCA_052305.doc- Page 3 of6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.