My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0522_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0522_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:50:07 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:49:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
254
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
EXTRACT OF MINUTES <br />OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />* * * * * * * * * <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 22nd day of May 2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br />The following members were present: <br />and the following were absent: <br />Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. <br />Resolution Approving a 18.5 foot variance to Section 1004.02D5 (Minimum Yard <br />Requirements of the Roseviile City Code for property located at <br />2125 Dale Street North. <br />WHEREAS, Section 1004A2D5 (Minimum Yard requirements) requires principal structures <br />to be set back a minimum distance of 30 feet from property line; and <br />WHEREAS, Ken Wieden has requested a variance of 18.5 feet to allow the construction of <br />an attached two stall garage adjacent to Eldridge Avenue (south side of home) 11.5 feet from the <br />front yard property line; and <br />WHEREAS, Ken Wieden has a unique corner lot situation that precludes complete <br />conformance with the Roseville City Code without damaging certain existing conditions of his <br />parcel; and <br />WHEREAS, the proposed site improvement would allow safer access to and form the parcel; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br />on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, failing (3 — 4) to recommend approval of the variance request; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br />a. The hardship situation was not created by the applicant (Wieden) and existed <br />prior to the applicant ...(existing tree removal and safety issues with driveway <br />access to Dale Street) <br />b. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that could justify a <br />variance include safety, topography ...(no reasonable place to construct garage <br />except south side of home) <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.