VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call & Introductions VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. Roseville City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive 3. Review of Minutes: October 8, Public Hearing Planning File : Request by Thomas and Melissa Biggs, owners of the property at 3088 W Owasso Boulevard, for a variance to the setback requirements of Section C (Water-Oriented Accessory Structures) of the Roseville City Code to allow a rebuilt structure to be relocated within required setbacks 5. Adjourn Future Meetings: Planning Commission & Variance Board (tentative): December 3, 2014 & January 7, 2015 City Council: Nov. 10, 17 & Dec. 1, 8 HRA: Nov. 18 & Dec. 16 Be a part of the picture.get involved with your City.Volunteer. For more information, contact Kelly at kelly.obrien@ci.roseville.mn.us or Volunteering, a Great Way to Get Involved.

2 City of Roseville Variance Board Meeting November 5, 2014 PF Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: October 30, 2014 Location of Planning Case Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (9/30/2014) * City of Roseville Community Development For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet mapdoc: variance_board_agenda.mxd L

3 Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes Wednesday, October 8, :30 p.m Call to Order Chair Boguszewski called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 2. Roll Call & Introductions At the request of Chair Boguszewski, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. Members Present: Chair Michael Boguszewski; and Commissioners Robert Murphy and Shannon Cunningham Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 3. Review of Minutes MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to approve meeting minutes of September 3, 2014 as presented. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 4. Public Hearing PLANNING FILE Request by Magellan Midstream Partners, LP for a VARIANCE to Section (Industrial Design Standards) of Roseville City Code to allow an accessory structure to utilize prefinished metal siding on more than 10% of the structure at 2451 County Road C Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File at 5:34 p.m. Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated October 8, 2014, and applicant narrative (Attachment C). Mr. Lloyd advised that the variance request seeks to allow an accessory structure to utilize prefinished metal siding on more than 10% of the structure at 2451 County Road C, a petroleum storage facility, with the overall facility built prior to 1959 and pre-dating Roseville s original zoning code, with the new proposed building subject to current zoning regulations. Discussion Member Cunningham questioned the rationale for allowing the metal finish versus an alternative building material as addressed by City Code minimum design requirements. As detailed in the staff report (lines 1 22), Mr. Lloyd clarified that the applicant could build the canopy from concrete tip-up panels or concrete, but structural strength needed for this canopy due to the flammable nature of and safety issues for offloading the product, required a ventilation gap on the east/west sides, necessitating sufficient support for the structure, and the additional weight would become prohibitive. City Planner Paschke noted that ice build-up was a safety concern for pedestrians in the area and workers loading vehicles, with this intended as a safety precaution to avoid potential catastrophes. Member Cunningham questioned whether the analysis of Variance Finding D provided sufficient need for unique circumstances not created by the land owner, and expressed her concern in setting a precedence for future variance requests. Member Murphy noted, as outlined in lines 2 6 of the staff report, the company use and structures preceded the City of Roseville s first building code; and personally noted the need for ventilation on the property when handling flammable materials. Based on the original building of the storage tank use and subsequent creation of City Code, Member Murphy opined that the use

4 Variance Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 2 was already there when City Code was initially adopted; and that this variance would serve to improve worker and product safety, as well as the safety and well-being of the entire community. Chair Boguszewski applauded staff s efforts to ensure this tiny structure was attractive even though surrounded by a field of oil tanks; and asked if the actual language of the draft variance resolution met staff s requirement for stucco-like materials; and provided sufficient flexibility for staff discretion in enforce the materials to be used by the applicant. Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the language was sufficient and provided several examples of the material identified as tough aggregate. Specific to the concerns expressed by Member Cunningham regarding setting a precedent, Mr. Paschke advised that, while this product could be perceived as such, each variance request was judged on its own merits. Mr. Paschke noted that this was a unique situation with a large tank farm versus a smaller industrial site next to an office or commercial use; but confirmed Mr. Lloyd s findings in this case as addressed. Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 5:50 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. Member Murphy spoke in support of the variance in an effort to boost safety and provide a vast improvement with this new structure. MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 108 (Attachment D) entitled, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Roseville City Code, Section (Industrial Design Standards) of Roseville City Code at 2451 County Road C PF ; to allow an accessory structure to utilize prefinished metal siding on more than 10% of the structure at 2451 County Road C; based on the comments and findings outlined in the staff report dated October 8, 2014, as conditioned. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 5. Adjournment Chair Boguszewski adjourned the meeting at approximately 5:50 p.m.

5 Agenda Date: 11/5/2014 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BOARD ACTION Agenda Item: 4a Division Approval Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item Description: Request by Thomas and Melissa Biggs for variances from Section C (Permitted Water-Oriented Accessory Structures), of the Roseville City Code, to allow construction of a new boathouse at 3088 West Owasso Boulevard (PF14-028). The action deadline for this request, mandated by Minn. Stat , is December 2, GENERAL SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Location: Thomas & Melissa Biggs 3088 West Owasso Boulevard Property Owner: Same Land Use Context Existing Land Use Guiding Zoning Site One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 North One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 West One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 East Lake Owasso South One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 Natural Characteristics: Planning File History: The site is located in a shoreland or wetland management area. None that could be found. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING Action taken on a variance request is quasi-judicial; the City s role is to determine the facts associated with the request, and weigh those facts against the legal standards contained in State Statute and City Code. PF14-028_RVBA_ Page 1 of 5

6 DETAILED PROPOSAL AND ZONING ANALYSIS Thomas and Melissa Biggs purchased 3088 West Owasso Boulevard in 2006 and reconstructed the home in Aerial photography indicates a boathouse on the subject property in the 1985 photo set, but earlier imagery is too distorted to determine if a boathouse was on the property. This property, located in City Planning District 4, has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classification of Low-Density Residential-1 (LDR- 1) District. The subject property also lies within the Shoreland Overlay District, which is guided by requirements that were established in The Biggses would like to relocate and reconstruct a new modest-sized boathouse to continue to meet their lake-use needs. The survey of the property prepared in 2007 for the new home construction indicates a 22-foot by 14-1/2-foot (319 sq. ft.) existing boathouse 1 foot 8 inches from the Ordinary High Watermark (OHW) and 3 feet from the side yard property line. The proposed structure would be located approximately 5 feet from the side yard property line and set off the shoreline or OHW approximately 4 feet. It would be of a similar size and width as the existing structure or 14-1/2 feet in width and 21-1/2 feet in depth and roughly 300 sq. ft. (see Attachment C). City Code C (Permitted Water-Oriented Accessory Structures) states: Each lot may have one water-oriented non-habitable accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in subsection A of this Chapter [75 feet] if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: 1. Water-oriented accessory structure dimensional requirements: a. Maximum floor area: 250 square feet b. Maximum width as viewed from the water: 12 feet c. Maximum height: 10 feet d. Setback from ordinary high watermark* e. Boathouse setback from ordinary high water level: 10 feet** f. Side yard setback from property line: 20 feet g. Detached deck height above grade: 8 feet *50% of distance between ordinary high watermark and the structure setback from the water **Also permitted for docks and off season storage of ice fishing houses Based on the above requirements and the proposal submitted, the Biggses boathouse will require variances from subsection a, b, e, and f. DETAILED ZONING ANALYSIS The existing boathouse, while not meeting certain setback and dimensional standards, is deemed to be a pre-existing non-conforming structure that is allowed to be replaced under the Code with the exact same dimensional standards and in the same location. Given the current state of the structure, specifically the concrete slab on which the boathouse is constructed, the age of the building, and the fact that a number trees have matured in close proximity, the Biggses would like to relocate and reconstruct a boathouse of similar size so as not to lose any of the preexisting allowances currently afforded. PF14-028_RVBA_ Page 2 of 5

7 Building setbacks in a residential district are intended to advance a few goals: one is to preserve useable space and to preserve private space in side yard and rear yards; another is to maintain some uniformity in placement of homes relative to street frontages and to locate accessory uses beside or behind the residence on the property. Such reasoning can also be attributed to the goals of the 1979 Shoreland Ordinance where setbacks and possibly dimensional standards were established as a means to not infringe on the public water and to minimize possible impacts along the shoreline, although most boathouses were constructed near the water s edge. Although the Planning Division and Building Department see few permits for boathouses or water-oriented accessory structures, there are 6 such structures within close proximity to the Biggs property, and these structures serve an important purpose for the homeowner and City by providing an appropriate place to store a boat and/or other water/yard-related items. It is also worth noting that the existing regulations under Chapter 1017, Shoreland, Wetland, and Storm Water Management are 35 years old and most likely include some attributes and nuances that could be updated to better suit/reflect the circumstances of today. VARIANCE ANALYSIS REVIEW OF VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS: Section C of the City Code establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance. Planning Division staff has reviewed the application and offers the following draft findings. a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff finds that the proposed boathouse is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it represents continued investment in a residential property in a way that is compatible with the surrounding lakeshore neighborhood. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan s Residential Goals and Policies chapter encourages maintenance, reinvestment, and highquality development and design of the City s residential structures, and the Environmental Protection Goals and Policies speaks to protecting and enhancing environmental resources. Planning Division staff concludes that the replacement of a dilapidated boathouse and relocating the structure further away from a neighboring tree and the shoreline makes strides towards achieving these goals and policies. b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. As indicated above, minimum required setback distances from a shoreline and maximum dimensional standards have been deemed previous tools intended to protect the public resource and to minimize any possible impacts. Planning Division staff believes that the proposal would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances since the applicant is seeking to replace a pre-existing non-conforming structure that could otherwise be replaced at the exact size and location. While the proposal boathouse is slightly wider as viewed from the water (approximately 12.5 to feet versus 12 feet), includes a greater square footage (315 versus 250 square feet), is set closer to the ordinary high watermark or shoreline than permitted (4 versus 10 feet), and is set closer to a side property line than permitted (5 feet versus 20 feet), the proposed relocated boathouse reduces the potential of adverse impacts to the existing trees (especially the tree on the neighboring property). The proposal also reduces the impact on the shoreline, and stabilizes the shoreline in front of the new boathouse, which will eliminate future eroding of the soil under the structure and allow for the construction of a modest upgraded structure for the home owners to store their water-related items. PF14-028_RVBA_ Page 3 of 5

8 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Reasonable use of the property would be constrained without a variance because strict compliance with the zoning code would effectively require this boathouse/water oriented accessory structure to be dimensionally smaller, both in width as viewed from the shore and overall size, and would require the new structure to be placed well off the shoreline and nearer the middle of the property versus along the side property line much like most accessory structures in residential areas. Planning Division staff believes that the proposed location, while not achieving full compliance with the required 10 foot shoreline and 20 foot side yard setback and the 250 sq. ft. maximum size, provides reasonable use of the property affording the home owners a new boathouse that reduces current impacts and preserves mature trees. d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. Planning Division staff finds that a combination of the pre-existing placement of the boathouse by others, trees that have matured on both the subject and the neighboring property, and the subsequent establishment of shoreland requirements, particularly those regarding water-oriented accessory structures, contribute to the unique characteristics that justify the approval of the requested VARIANCE. Further, a case could be made that some of the requirements of Chapter 1017 are outdated and in need of revision. Specifically, items related to setback and dimensional standards limit the ability to develop creative building designs that can reduce visual impact, which seems to be an overarching goal and one that could be better achieved with added flexibility not currently afforded within the Code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the boathouse/water-oriented accessory structure would not be placed at the required setbacks from side yard and the shoreline, and not meet a couple dimensional standards, the improvement represents a general lake shore improvement enjoyed by many current home owners. Additionally, the proposed structure is not unlike similar improvements to the non-compliant front yard detached garages found on many of the residential properties that surround the developed lakes in Roseville. Boathouses have been in existence for many years and are common features, usually very near property lines and the shoreline. For this reason, the VARIANCE, if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Section (Variances) of the City Code explains that the purpose of a VARIANCE is to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning. It could be argued that most variance requests could achieve strict compliance with City requirements, however, this proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above requirements essential for approving variances. Moreover, there is something to be said about good design and appropriate placement of a structure that would otherwise not be allowed. The code-compliant way to build the proposed water-oriented accessory structure seems to be an impractical and unreasonable requirement, placing the structure in an odd or unreasonable location of the property. Planning Division staff believes that such a restriction represents a practical difficulty, which the variance process is intended to relieve. Based on the proposal, a 65 square foot variance is required from C.1.a; a 2-1/2 foot variance is required from C.b; a 6 foot variance is required from C.1.e; and a 15 foot variance is required from C.1.f. PF14-028_RVBA_ Page 4 of 5

9 PUBLIC COMMENT At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not received any communications from the public about the variance request. OUTSIDE AGENCY REVIEW Per of the Zoning Ordinance, the Department of Natural Resources have been notified of the public hearing pertaining to this variance request. To date, the Planning Division has not received any comments regarding the request or the report for Variance Board Action. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Variance Board Resolution 109 a 65 square foot variance is required from C.1.a; a 2-1/2 foot variance from C.b; a 6 foot variance from C.1.e; and a 15 foot variance from C.1.f of the City Code to allow the construction of a boathouse/water-oriented accessory structure at 3088 West Owasso Boulevard, based on the comments and findings outlined in this report, subject to the following condition: a. The applicant and/or contractor shall provide a detailed survey at the time of building permit submittal consistent with the above setback and dimensional variances. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Pass a motion to table one or more of the items for future action. Tabling the application/request would require an extension of the 60-day action deadline established in Minn. Stat Adopt a resolution to deny the requested approval. Denial should be supported by specific findings of fact based on the Variance Board s review of the application, applicable zoning or subdivision regulations, and the public record. NEXT STEPS The decision of the Variance Board is final unless an appeal is filed. The appeal period remains open for 10 days from the date of the decision, and an appeal may be made either by the applicant or by another Roseville property owner. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the City Manager by noon on November 17, 2014, for a hearing before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Prepared by: City Planner Thomas Paschke thomas.paschke@ci.roseville.mn.us Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photo C: Proposed plans D: Draft resolution PF14-028_RVBA_ Page 5 of 5

10 POS / PR Valley Attachment A for Planning File MILLWOOD AVE Park POS / PR BRENNER AVE WEST OWASSO BLVD Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: October 27, Site Location Comp Plan / Zoning Designations Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (9/30/2014) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN Location Map Disclaimer L This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare Feet this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. mapdoc: planning_commission_location.mxd

11 MILLWOOD AVENUE W Attachment B for Planning File WEST OWASSO BLVD Location Map Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: October 27, 2014 Site Location Disclaimer Data Sources This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (9/30/2014) L information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to * Aerial Data: MnGeo (4/2012) be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies Feet City of Roseville, Community Development Department, are found please contact The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes , Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.

12 Attachment C

13 Attachment C

14 Attachment C

15 Attachment C

16 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Attachment D Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 5th day of November 2014, at 5:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following members absent: Variance Board Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: VB RESOLUTION NO. 109 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO C (PERMITTED WATER- ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE AT 3088 WEST OWASSO BOULEVARD (PF14-028) WHEREAS, City Code C provides specific setback and dimensional standards for water-oriented accessory structures; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Biggs, property owners of 3088 West Owasso Boulevard, have requested VARIANCES to City Code 1017.C to allow a new boathouse 315 square feet in size, 14-1/2 feet in width, set back 4 feet from the ordinary high watermark and 5 feet from the side yard property line. WHEREAS, the Biggses property is legally described as: PIN: Lot 14, Lake Owasso Park WHEREAS, City Code (Variances) establishes the purpose of a VARIANCE is to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning; and WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: a. The code-compliant way to build the proposed water-oriented accessory structure is an impractical requirement, requiring placing the structure in an odd or unreasonable location of the property and limiting its design. Furthermore, there is something to be said about good design and appropriate placement of a structure that would otherwise not be allowed. Such compliance would require a greater side yard setback than required of non-shoreland accessory structures and be out of place with the lot and other properties in the area; requires a building design (size and width viewed from the shoreline) that appears outdated; and eliminated the ability to use the existing Page 1 of 4

17 Attachment D mature trees as a screen. It is these restrictions that represent the practical difficulty of the variance request. b. The proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it represents continued investment in a residential property in a way that is compatible with the surrounding lakeshore neighborhood. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan s Residential Goals and Policies chapter encourages maintenance, reinvestment, and high-quality development and design of the City s residential structures, and the Environmental Protection Goals and Policies speaks to protecting and enhancing environmental resources. The replacement of a decapitated boathouse and relocating the structure further away from a neighboring tree and the shoreline makes strides towards achieving these goals and policies; c. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances minimum required setback distances from a shoreline and maximum dimensional standards have been deemed previous tools intended to protect the public resource and to minimize any possible impacts. The proposal would be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances since the applicant is seeking to replace a pre-existing non-conforming structure that could otherwise be replaced at the exact size and location. While the proposal boathouse is slightly wider as viewed from the water (approximately 12.5 to feet versus 12 feet), includes a greater square footage (315 versus 250 square feet), is set closer to the ordinary high watermark or shoreline than permitted (4 versus 10 feet), and is set closer to a side property line than permitted (5 feet versus 20 feet), the proposed relocated boathouse reduces the potential of adverse impacts to the existing trees (especially the tree on the neighboring property). The proposal also reduces the impact on the shoreline, and stabilizes the shoreline in front of the new boathouse which will eliminate future eroding of the soil under the structure, and allows the construction of a modest upgraded structure for the home owners to store their water-related items; d. Reasonable use of the property would be constrained without a variance because strict compliance with the zoning code would effectively require this boathouse/water oriented accessory structure to be dimensionally smaller, both in width as viewed from the shore and overall size, and would require the new structure to be placed well off the shoreline and nearer the middle of the property versus along the side property line much like most accessory structures in residential areas. The proposed location, while not achieving full compliance with the required 10 foot shoreline and 20 foot side yard setback and the 250 sq. ft. maximum size, provides reasonable use of the property affording the home owners a new boathouse that reduces current impacts and preserves mature trees; e. The property possesses the kind of unique characteristics that justify approval of the requested variance because of the pre-existing placement of the boathouse by others, trees that have matured on both the subject and the neighboring property, and the subsequent establishment of shoreland requirements, particularly those regarding water-oriented accessory structures, contribute to the unique characteristics that justify the approval of the requested VARIANCE. Further, a case could be made that some of the requirements of Chapter 1017 are outdated and in need of revision. Page 2 of 4

18 Attachment D Specifically, items related to setback and dimensional standards limit the ability to develop creative building designs that can reduce visual impact, which seems to be an overarching goal and one that could be better achieved with added flexibility not currently afforded within the Code. f. The proposed boathouse/water-oriented accessory structure represents a type residential improvement that is limited to lakeshore property. Although the boathouse would not be placed at the required setbacks from side yard and the shoreline, and not meet a couple dimensional standards, the improvement represents a general lake shore improvement enjoyed by many current home owners. Additionally, boathouses have been in existence for many years and are common features, usually very near property lines and the shoreline, and of varying length, height, and width. Such an improvement would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to approve a 65 square foot variance from C.1.a, a 2-1/2 foot variance from C.b, a 6 foot variance from C.1.e, and a 15 foot variance from C.1.f of the City Code to allow construction of a new boathouse, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant and/or contractor shall provide a detailed survey at the time of building permit submittal consistent with the above setback and dimensional variances. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Variance Board Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and voted against; WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 3 of 4

19 Variance Board Resolution No. 109 Thomas & Melissa Biggs, 3088 West Owasso Boulevard (PF14-028) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said Roseville Variance Board held on the 5th day of November 2014 with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 5th day of November Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Page 4 of 4