2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 2 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 1 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of February 2021 at 6:00 p.m. 2 The following Council Members were present: _________; 3 and _____ were absent. 4 Council Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5 RESOLUTION NO. ___ 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SETBACK VARIANCES IN THE ‘THE ENCLAVE AT 7 MCCARRONS LAKE’ PLAT (PF20-029) 8 WHEREAS, Airborne McCarrons, LLC, has submitted a valid application for approval of a 9 setback variance on behalf of the property owner, Matthias Schlosser; and 10 WHEREAS, subject property is legally described as: 11 Lots 1 – 20, Block 1, The Enclave at McCarrons Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota 12 WHEREAS, City Code §1004.10.B (MDR Setbacks) requires principal structures to be set back 13 a minimum of 5 feet from side property lines; and 14 WHEREAS, Airborne McCarrons, LLC has requested a variance to §1004.10.B to allow certain 15 principal structure to encroach up to 5 feet into the required setback; and 16 WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes the purpose of a variance is "to permit 17 adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or 18 building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning;" and 19 WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing for the 20 request on February 3, 2021, and having closed said public hearing, voted unanimously to recommend 21 approval of the requested variances based on the public record and the Planning Commission’s 22 deliberation with certain conditions; and 23 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has made the following findings regarding the general 24 standards and criteria established in §1009.04: 25 1. The proposed arrangement would still preserve the 10-foot separation between dwelling units, the 26 10-foot yard on one side of each lot would likely be more useful to the future homeowners than a 27 five-foot yard on both sides, and a homeowners’ association can prohibit any structures being built 28 or expanded into the side yard. Taking this into consideration, enforcing a minimum setback from 29 both of a lot’s side lines in this location represents a practical difficulty which the variance process is 30 intended to relieve 31 2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent with 32 the Comprehensive Plan because it represents the sort of residential development promoted by the 33 Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies while not compromising the policies intended to protect 34 the internal and nearby residential properties. 35 RCA Attachment F Page 5 of 8