Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment D <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 public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the <br />1 <br />th <br />Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 4 day of May, <br />2 <br />2016, at 5:30 p.m. <br />3 <br />The following members were present: <br />4 <br />and the following members absent: <br />5 <br />Variance Board Member _______________ introduced the following resolution and moved its <br />6 <br />adoption: <br />7 <br />VB RESOLUTION NO. _____ <br />8 <br />A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO §1004.02, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, <br />9 <br />TABLE 1004-1, OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE AT 2040 IRENE STREET <br />10 <br />(PF16-011) <br />11 <br />WHEREAS, City Code §1004.02, Accessory Buildings, Table 1004-1, does not allow a <br />12 <br />accessory structure (shed) in the front yard; and <br />13 <br />WHEREAS, Chris and Tara Anderson seek to construct a garden shed a minimum of 16 <br />14 <br />feet from the Irene Street curb and within the front yard; and <br />15 <br />WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: <br />16 <br />Lot 11, Block 2, McCarron’s Addition <br />17 <br />WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes that the purpose of a <br />18 VARIANCE <br />is “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying <br />19 <br />to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by <br />20 <br />the zoning;” and <br />21 <br />WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: <br />22 <br />a. <br />The code-compliant manner in which to meet the requirements of §1004.02, <br />23 <br />Accessory Structures, Table 1004-1, has been determined to be burdensome for this <br />24 <br />situation. Such limitations/restrictions represent the practical difficulty of the <br />25 <br />variance request and the proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above <br />26 <br />requirements essential for approving variances. <br />27 <br />b. <br />The proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the <br />28 <br />addition of a useable shed and its location is more functional and represents the sort <br />29 <br />of reinvestment promoted by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for <br />30 <br />residential areas. <br />31 <br />Page 1 of 4 <br /> <br />