My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0925_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0925_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 1:56:28 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:51:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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
DRAFT <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <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 25th day of September 2000, at <br />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 VARIANCE TO 1004.02D (DWELLING DIMENSIONS <br />AND APPEARANCES AND HEIGHT, FRONTAGE, YARD AND LOT AREA <br />REQUIREMENTS IN R-1 DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1983 <br />HAMLINE AVENUE (PF 3252). <br />WHEREAS, Susan Bruhn has requested approval of a variance to allow the replacement <br />of an existing non-conforming three-season porch; and <br />WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D requires a 30 foot rear yard setback for all principle <br />structures; and <br />WHEREAS, the three-season porch, if replaced, would be located 13 feet into the <br />required 30 foot rear yard setback; and <br />WHEREAS, Ms. Bruhn purchased the home with the screened porch, not knowing the <br />porch location did not conform to the Roseville City Code; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the <br />request on Wednesday, September 13, 2000, and recommended (6-0) approval of the request for <br />a 13 foot rear yard variance based on the following findings: <br />A. There is a physical hardship in the request by the applicant for a variance to exceed <br />the permitted lot coverage. <br />B. The applicant did not create the hardship. <br />C. There is a unique physical feature to the property that would justify the variance, <br />specifically the narrow shape of the lot and requiring an e�tended length of driveway. <br />D. There is not a reasonable alternative design that could be accomplished without a <br />variance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.