Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.. <br /> <br />3404263 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Monday, September 25,2000 and made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. The City has determined that the site has unique characteristics, few alternatives, and <br />pre-existing hardships that warrant granting a variance. Further, the conditional use <br />permit meets the necessary criteria to allow the renovation and expansion project <br />because it is properly zoned for auto service in an area where autos are the primarily <br />transportation mode; it can visually enhance the corner and the pre-existing <br />site/structure; and it will provide a more functional fuel/service car wash facility. <br /> <br />2. A strict application of the City Code would impose an unusual hardship on the <br />applicant. <br /> <br />3. The unique physical feature of the principal structure being located so far west on the <br />parcel that it prevents exit from the car wash without a variance. <br /> <br />4. The hardship was not created by the applicant. <br /> <br />5. Granting of the variance will not significantly impact the health, safety or general <br />welfare of the community. <br /> <br />6. The variance is needed to allow sufficient safety turn radius for fuel trucks. <br /> <br />7. The unique physical feature of the limited size of the parcel of land prevents the <br />applicant from providing adequate ingress and egress to his business without a <br />variance. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") ofthe City <br />ofRoseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that a variance from Section <br />1005.09C, Section 1005.01D6B, and Section 1005.09E of the Roseville City Code be approved <br />for property located at 2151 Dale Street. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Mastel, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Maschka, <br />Wiski, Goedeke, Mastel and Kysylyczyn <br /> <br />and the following voted against the same: None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />Rls <br />