Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Variance Board of the City of <br />th <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 6 day of March 2013, at 5:30 p.m. <br />The following members were present: Chair Gisselquist and member Boguszewski and <br />Member Strohmeier was absent. <br />Variance Board Member Gisselquist introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />VB RESOLUTION NO. 96 <br />A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO §1004.05 (RESIDENTIAL DESIGN <br />STANDARDS) OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE (PF13-002) <br />WHEREAS, Richard Kimmes, owner of Ramsey County Parcels 11-29-23-41-0068 and <br />11-29-23-41-0054, has requested to City Code §1004.05A to allow the construction <br />VARIANCES <br />of new homes that would deviate from the design standards; and <br />WHEREAS, the overhead doors of the attached garages of the proposed the new homes <br />would project forward of the homes; and <br />WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes the purpose of a is <br />VARIANCE <br />“to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a <br />parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the <br />zoning;” and <br />WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: <br /> <br />a. <br />No practical difficulties applying to the land are present because the subject properties <br />are reasonably sized, relatively flat, rectangular, and undeveloped; <br /> <br />b. <br />The proposed home design is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s repeated <br />advocacy for high-quality design, aesthetic appeal, and walkability; <br /> <br />c. <br />The proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the pertinent zoning requirement which <br />is explicitly intended to “create streets that are pleasant and inviting, and to promote <br />building faces which emphasize living area as the primary function of the building or <br />function of the residential use”; and <br /> <br />d. <br />The subject properties do not possess unique characteristics that justify the approval of <br />the requested variances; <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to deny the <br />requested variances to the residential design standards as proposed. <br />Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br />