Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL 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 24th day of July 2000, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: Maschka, Mastel, Goedeke, Kysylyczyn <br />and the following were absent: Wiske <br /> <br />Council Member Maschka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 9796 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1004.02D4 <br />OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE <br />FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2016 BEACON STREET [Sabetti](PF3233) <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1004.02D4 (Dwelling Dimensions and Appearances and Height, <br />Frontage Yard and Lot area Requirements) stipulates that a side yard adjacent to a street on a comer <br />lot shall not be less than 30 feet; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, this ordinance was originally adopted in 1959 and subsequently amended in <br />1995; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Mr. Sabetti's attached garage is located 10 feet from the comer side property <br />line; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Mr. Sabetti proposes to construct and addition onto the existing garage ten feet <br />wide and running east from the current exterior (east) wall of the attached garage. The purpose of <br />which is to construct a ramp inside the garage for better wheelchair access from the home to their <br />vehicle; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the comer lot setback for this addition is 30 feet from the property line adjacent <br />to Shryer Street, which in this case requires a 20 foot variance from Section 1004.02D4 of the <br />Roseville City Code for both the existing attached garage and the proposed addition; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br />on Wednesday, July 12,2000, and recommended (7-0) approval of the requested variance based on <br />the following findings: <br /> <br />A. There is a physical hardship (site location) in denying the variance to allow an addition <br />to the existing garage, specifically that the applicant will not be able to use the garage for <br />its intended purpose. <br /> <br />B. The applicant did not create the physical hardship. <br /> <br />1 <br />