Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Pursuant to and notice thereof, a the <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 25th day of April, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: <br />and the following were absent: <br /> <br /> <br />Council Member <br /> <br />introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. <br />A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 25 FOOT LOT WIDTH VARIANCE <br />AND A 1,820 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE VARIANCE <br />TO SECTION 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) <br />OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE <br />FOR NEW PARCEL" A" PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1758 AL T A VISTA DRIVE <br />(PF 3626) <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Ralph and Jim Beauclaire have requested a 25 foot lot width variance and a <br />1,820 square foot lot size variance to Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) <br />of the Roseville City Code for a new Parcel "A" for property located at 1758 AHa Vista Drive, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, new parcel "A" located at 1758 AHa Vista Drive is legally described as: <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 11.0404 E outlines the requirements and procedures to follow when <br />a subdivision of properties creates a total ofthree or less land parcels; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) establishes the <br />minimum lot standards for residential parcels, which includes an 85 foot minimum width along a <br />public right-of-way, a 110 foot minimum depth and 11,000 square foot minimum size; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 1013 ofthe City Code grants the Variance Board authority to <br />review/approve appropriate variances in accordance with the Code requirements, and MS <br />462.357, subd 6(s) provides authority for the city to hear and grant requests for variances under <br />certain circumstances; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the <br />Beauclaire variance and subdivision requests. One neighbor was present to support the <br />subdivision but to caution about the private sewer and pumping systems. He recommended a new <br />city sewer line as an alternative. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the <br />variances and subdivision 6-0 based on the findings in Section 5 ofthe project report and subject <br />to the conditions within Section 6 of the project report dated April 6, 2005, and including <br />payment of park fee by applicant (ifrequired after attorney review) and, if requested on the new <br />parcel, side yard variances will be required rather than setback pernlits. <br /> <br />1 <br />