2000_0522_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 SUGGESTED FINDINGS 4.1 Staff recommends use of an outline, similar to the following possible findings, for determining whether there is an "undue hardship" significant enough to approve the variance. a. The proposal (does/does not) constitute a reasonable use of the property.. .. b. The hardship situation was (was not) created by the applicant (Youngquist) or e�sted prior to the applicant.. . c. The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that justify a variance include . . . d. The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include ... e, The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance include.. . f. The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare including.. . g. Other findings deemed appropriate by the City Council. 4.2 Staff recommends approval of the request by Steve and Kristin Youngquist for a variance to Section 1016.22A1 and 1016.26B 1 of the Roseville City Code allowing redevelopment of the parcel located at 391 Owasso Boulevard South with a single family residential home. 5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION 51 On May 10, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the variance request by Steve and Kristin Younquist. The hearing was attended by a number of adjacent property owners who addressed the Commission supporting the variance request. 5.2 Commissioner Egli asked about the bh�ff setback and reduction in impervious area and Member Olson asked whether any trees would be removed and if any plantings will occur along the lakeshore. Staff answered the questions regarding the bluff and impervious area, and Mr. Youngquist answered the questions regarding trees and plantings (see attached minutes). PF32 10 — RCA (052200) Page 3 of 4