Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES <br />OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />OF THE CITY OF ROSEVllLE <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />'* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />'* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <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 26th day ofJuly 1999, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: Mastel, Maschka, Wiski (6:34pm), Goedeke, Wall <br />and the following were absent None <br /> <br />Council Member Mastel introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />Resolution No. 9672 <br />Resolution Approving a Front Yard Setback Variance <br />at 1935 Rice Street <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1005.09A(1) of the Roseville City Code requires a structures to have <br />a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet from property line; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, said pylon signs and poles are considered structure within the Roseville City <br />Code; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Audrey and Joseph Duellman, owner/operator (hereinafter" applicant") of the <br />lot at 1935 Rice Street, has applied for a variance to reduce the 30 foot required front yard setback <br />to zero feet, to enable the attachment of additional signage onto the pre-existing non-conforming <br />pole; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br />on Wednesday, July 14,1999, and recommended (6-0) approval of the requested variance; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Monday, July 26, 1999; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to demonstrate <br />that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. <br /> <br />2. The structure, site, and sign were constructed 42 years ago (1957) prior to current regulations, <br />thus creating the pre-existing non-conformity. <br /> <br />3. The gas/service station, constructed to maximize the site, offers no alternative for relocating <br />the existing pylon. The current parking lot and drive lane area are located in the front of the <br />structure and cover 90+ percent ofthe site except for small grass areas along Rice Street and <br />McCarron Street. <br /> <br />Page lof2 <br />