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. <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 Hei t, <br />Frontage Yard and Lot area Requirements) stipulates that a side yard adj acent to a street on a co er <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 tenD et <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 adjac nt <br />to Shryer Street, which in this case requires a 20 foot variance from Section 1004.02D4 of ' e <br />Roseville City Code for both the existing attached garage and the proposed addition; and ,l <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the requ st <br />on Wednesday, July 12,2000, and recommended (7-0) approval ofthe requested variance based ion <br />the following findings: I <br /> <br />A. There is a physical hardship (site location) in denying the variance to allow an addit~on <br />to the existing garage, specifically that the applicant will not be able to use the garage for <br />its intended purpose. I <br /> <br />B. The applicant did not create the physical hardship. <br /> <br />1 <br />