2016-08-03_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RVBA Attachment D EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the 1 rd Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 3 day of August 2 2016, at 5:30 p.m. 3 The following members were present: _______ and ______; 4 and ______ were absent. 5 Variance Board Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 VB RESOLUTION NO. _____ 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ROSEVILLE CITY CODE SECTION 8 1004.08 AT 3005 WOODBRIDGE STREET (PF16-020) 9 WHEREAS, City Code §1004.05 prohibits forward-facing overhead doors of attached 10 garages from standing more than 5 feet in front of the remainder of the principal structure; and 11 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has received a valid request for a variance to this 12 section of the City Code to allow the forward-facing overhead door of the proposed attached 13 garage to stand 8 feet in front of the remainder of the principal structure and 14 WHEREAS, City Code §1004.08 requires principal structures to be set back a minimum 15 of 30 feet from reverse-corner side property lines; and 16 WHEREAS, the owner of the subject property has requested a variance to this section of 17 the City Code to allow a proposed attached garage addition to encroach approximately 19 feet 18 into the required side yard adjacent to South Owasso Boulevard; and 19 WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes that the purpose of a variance is 20 “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to 21 a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by 22 the zoning;” and 23 WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: 24 a. The practical difficulty in this case is limited to the steep slopes that make the 25 driveway access to the side street dangerous, particularly in the winter; there is no 26 practical difficulty in building a garage that conforms to the design standards 27 pertaining to the forward-facing overhead door. 28 b. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents the 29 kind of reinvestment in residential neighborhoods promoted by the Comprehensive 30 Plan, especially since the encroachment into the required reverse-corner side yard 31 setback is the result of relocating the garage to eliminate a perennial safety issue that 32 Page 1 of 4