Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. There is a unique (normal and reasonable use) feature to the property that would justify <br />the variance, specifically the proximately of the existing garage to the street. <br /> <br />D. There is not a reasonable alternative design that would not require a variance. <br /> <br />E. Granting the variance would not significantly impact the health, safety or general welfare <br />of the community. <br /> <br />F. Granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Monday, July 24; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council determined the Planning Commission's findings <br />to a true and accurate basis for granting the requested variance. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") ofthe City of <br />Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a 20 foot variance to Section <br />1004.02D4 of the Roseville City Code, allowing the existing attached garage and a ten foot addition <br />(or garage reconstruction) to be located in the required comer lot setback area for the property <br />located at 2016 Beacon Street (pID # 162923130025) be approved. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Kysylyczyn, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Maschka, <br />Mastel, Goedeke, Kysylyczyn <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />2 <br />