Laserfiche WebLink
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF T H E <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meetingof the City Councilof the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ra�nse�? Mir�esata, was held on the 2S"' day of September, 2006, at 6:00 <br />�.�z, <br />The followingmembers were present: <br />and the followingwere absent: <br />Council Member introducedthe following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N O. <br />,� FtF.S��LrZ'[�� �E�1 ZtiG:� ��;�R[:�� €:I�� "t'(] ��(#04.01G �L� D �.'� =1�C�f]iZ���:�C�: <br />�77'i� �f9L3.�? (}� �Cl-��. �[3��k11�ly��l"I'� ��+�iL•: r�}� �;IiA�� ��Ti.F.�`?"Ft7, <br />AND THE V�C�N1 PARCEL AT DALE STREET AND DALE COURT (P�37$�.). <br />WHEREAS, Charles Weleczlci is the owner of the vacant developable parcel at Dale <br />Street and Dale �'�r�,= �; a��d <br />WHEREAS, the subj ect property is legally described as: <br />�t�QU�"R�S LEGAL DESCRZ.PT",G41V� <br />WHEREAS, the property owner seeks a 15 foot VARIANCE to $1004.016 (Residential <br />Dimensional Requirements —�`ro��.t Yard Setback) to allow greater flexibilityin the design of a <br />principal structure on the uniquely shaped parcel at Dale Court and Dale Street; and <br />WHEREAS, The Roseville Variance Board held tl�� public hearing regardingthe <br />VAR.3AN CE request, voting 3-0 to DENY based on their determinationthat "hardships"were <br />not present and that the need for the variancewas createdby the ap�l�cant/pzopert� owner; and <br />WHEREAS, the applicanthas appealedthe decisionof the Variance Board to the <br />Roseville City Council seeking the Council's support for the requested 15 f�'or�t yard setback <br />VAR�.AN'C�, and <br />WFiEREA�, the Roseville City Council concurs with the determinationof the Va�-iaz�ee <br />Board, deiermiui�gthe followingfinding of fact: <br />�, That the applicant l�ad options available when the original land division was <br />approved in 2005 that could have increasedthe uniquelyshapedparcel's size, <br />offering greater design flexibility without a variance. <br />2, That a p���cipal s�i.�ci��e with attached garage could be designed and construeted <br />on the parcel, however, said structure most likely would not be a traditionaldesign <br />includinglarge open livingspaces and a I]u�.c-stall attached garage. <br />� <br />