Laserfiche WebLink
RVBA Attachment D <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />VARIANCE BOARDOF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a public hearing was held at theregular meeting of the <br />1 <br />th <br />Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 14 day of <br />2 <br />September 2016, at 5:30 p.m. <br />3 <br />The following members were present:_______; <br />4 <br />and ______ wereabsent. <br />5 <br />Variance Board Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />6 <br />VB RESOLUTION NO. ___ <br />7 <br />A RESOLUTION DENYING AVARIANCETO ROSEVILLE CITY CODE SECTION <br />8 <br />1004.02AT 3180 WEST OWASSO BOULEVARD(PF16-024) <br />9 <br />WHEREAS, the subject property is assigned Ramsey County Parcel Identification <br />10 <br />Number 02-29-23-11-0002, and is legally described as Lot 2Lake Owasso Park, Ramsey County, <br />11 <br />Minnesota; and <br />12 <br />WHEREAS, City Code §1004.02 limits the footprints of accessory storage buildings on a <br />13 <br />property to 1,008 square feet; and <br />14 <br />WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has received a valid request for a variance to this <br />15 <br />section of the City Code to allow a 1,217-square-foot detached garage; and <br />16 <br />WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes that the purpose of a varianceis <br />17 <br />“to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a <br />18 <br />parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the <br />19 <br />zoning;” and <br />20 <br />WHEREAS,the Variance Boardhas made the following findings: <br />21 <br />a. <br />No practical difficulties have been demonstrated, which prevent the property from <br />22 <br />being used to the extend intended by the zoning code. <br />23 <br />b. <br />The dominating presence of garage doors in close proximity to the front property line <br />24 <br />is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s advocacy of pedestrian friendliness. <br />25 <br />c. <br />The proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because it <br />26 <br />exceeds by 20% the largest size of detached garage that the zoning code has ever allowed <br />27 <br />under any circumstances. <br />28 <br />d. <br />A “reasonable” garage on a residential property has long been interpreted as <br />29 <br />accommodating two vehicles and a moderate amount of storage for household items and <br />30 <br />equipment; variances have been granted when necessary to achieve such two-car garages <br />31 <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br />