VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. Roseville City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive The Variance Board agenda and staff reports for the agenda items are available ONLINE from the Variance Board s web page at 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call & Introductions 3. Review of Minutes: June 4, Public Hearing Planning File : Request by Michael Ahmann for a variance to Section (Accessory Buildings), of the Roseville City Code to allow a detached garage to be constructed in excess of the maximum floor area at 2926 Old Highway 8 5. Adjourn Future Meetings: Planning Commission & Variance Board (tentative): August 6 & September 3 City Council: July 7, 14, 21 & August 11, 18, 25 HRA: July 15 & August 19 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 July 9, 2014 County Road D Lake Johanna Lake Josephine GâWX Lake Owasso Oasis Pond County Road C2 G»W Langton Lake PF County Road C County Road C Bennett Lake County Road B2 Willow Pond County Road B2 Zimmerman Lake Western Avenue Rice Street County Road B Cleveland Avenue Fairview Avenue Roselawn Avenue Snelling Avenue Hamline Avenue Lexington Avenue Victoria Street Dale Street McCarrons Lake G»W Larpenteur Avenue Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: June 24, 2014 Location of Planning Case Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (6/1/2014) * 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, June 4, :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 and Shannon Cunningham Others Present: Alternate Variance Board Member Jim Daire Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 3. Review of Minutes MOTION Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to approve meeting minutes of May 7, 2014 as presented. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings a. PLANNING FILE Request by Diane Schmidt for a VARIANCE to Section (LDR-1 District) of Roseville City Code to allow a home addition to encroach into the required rear yard setback at 1836 Fernwood Street Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File at 5:35 p.m. Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated June 4, 2017, to allow construction of a modest porch addition that would encroach 10 into the required 30-foot rear yard setback, with the addition standing approximately 20 from that rear property line. Mr. Lloyd advised that, since the staff report distributed, staff had received one phone call from a resident owning property nearby, expressing their philosophical opposition to the use of variances in any circumstance; and staff had received an from another neighbor, expressing appreciation of the condition in which Ms. Schmidt keeps her property, and speaking in support of the variance request. Mr. Lloyd advised that, after staff s analysis as outlined in Section 5 of the staff report, they recommended approval of the requested variance. Discussion Member Murphy pointed out a typographical correction in the draft resolution (Attachment D) in WHEREAS d, with consensus of the body to correct language from proposed retail redevelopment makes reasonable use to proposed home addition makes reasonable use Additional discussion included the makeup of the City s Design Review Committee, consisting of a representative manager of each City Department to review applications and address comments or concerns before recommended approval or denial, or designate any applicable mitigation measures. Chair Boguszewski noted that, since the purpose of setbacks was to protect neighboring properties, current wording requiring a 30 rear yard setback and 5 side yard setback

4 Variance Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 2 where if the actual addition was proposed in this case if worded accordingly, there would have been no need for a variance for appropriate regulations. The applicant was present, but had no comment beyond the staff report and presentation. Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 5:45 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 103 entitled, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Roseville City Code, Section B (Residential Setbacks) at 1836 Fernwood Avenue (PF14-013) ; based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 4, 2013; amended as follows: Correct typographical correction to WHEREAS d, from proposed retail redevelopment makes reasonable use to proposed home addition makes reasonable use Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. b. PLANNING FILE Request by David Einzig for a VARIANCE to Section (Shoreland Setbacks) of Roseville City Code to allow a driveway to encroach into the required setback from a wetland boundary at 2950 W Owasso Boulevard Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File at 6:47 p.m. Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated June 4, 2014, to allow construction of a residential driveway that would encroach approximately 12 into the required 30 setback from a wetland boundary; as detailed in the staff report dated June 4, Mr. Lloyd noted that the subject property was platted in 1921, and aerial photography showed the presence of the wetland in 1940, the earliest year of aerial imagery by Ramsey County s GIS, and further noted that the required driveway setback from a wetland was part of Ordinance 1156 adopted in Mr. Lloyd noted that the former home had previously been demolished as part of redevelopment plans in the area and intended reinvestment in residential property, consistent with the City s comprehensive plan and goal to protect surface waters. Mr. Lloyd advised that by constructing the driveway to direct rainwater from the water, it would prevent further degradation; and noted that the proposed site plan was included in the staff report (Attachment C). Mr. Lloyd referenced a neighboring home (2940 W Owasso Blvd.) with a similarly located driveway. As part of their review, Mr. Lloyd noted that the DRC had supported approval as conditioned and related to the driveway slope and location, detailed in Section 7.0 of the staff report. Mr. Lloyd advised that, after staff s analysis, they recommended approval of the requested variance, as outlined in Section 5 of the staff report. Discussion Member Cunningham questioned the location of this and other driveways in relationship to the wetland and the potential for any further compromise to the wetland. Mr. Lloyd responded in the negative based on the proposed location of the driveway reverting to its placement when reconstructed in 2007/2008 at which time it was constructed to ensure there would be no drainage into the wetland; and further guaranteed with the recommended conditioned approval. Member Cunningham questioned if the additional changes made to the grading completely mitigated any potential impact to the wetland in the future.

5 Variance Board Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd responded that the proposed changes affected any rainwater reaching the wetland, which it would not do when the driveway was properly sloped, in accordance with requirements of City Code and the Watershed District to ensure that the wetland was protected. Member Murphy questioned if any water was being redirected from the pond to the lake, essentially rerouting potential pollution from one spot to another without barriers in place to prevent it. Mr. Lloyd responded in the affirmative, and although not pollution otherwise prohibited, if the wetland was not here, a typical driveway would release some contaminants going into the grass and filtering through the soil. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that the site plan showed a proposed pipe installation with an outlet for draining the wetland to another adjacent wetland rather than the lake. However, Mr. Lloyd clarified that it was not a function of this variance request; but if the variance was granted, it would be addressed through the normal permitting process of the City and Watershed District. Member Murphy pointed out the same error on the draft resolution as noted for the previous case; duly noted by staff. The applicant was present, but had no comment beyond the staff report and presentation. Public Comment Derek Schmidt, 2944 W Owasso Blvd. (south of subject property) Mr. Schmidt spoke in support of the variance, opining that he was happy to see the property being redeveloped, as it had been abandoned for the last 6 8 years, since he d built his home. Mr. Schmidt noted that, in discussing the wetland which often overflowed in the spring, he was presuming that the proposed drainage pipe would keep the wetland from getting any higher and subsequently overflowing into the lake. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Schmidt advised that he didn t need to go through a similar variance process when he installed his driveway, as it was sloped appropriately before and they proposed the same design. Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 6:02 p.m.; no one else spoke for or against. MOTION Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 104 entitled, A Resolution Approving a Variance to Roseville City Code, Section A (Wetland Setbacks) at 2950 W Owasso Boulevard (PF14-014); based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 4, 2013; amended as follows: Correct typographical correction to WHEREAS d, from proposed retail redevelopment makes reasonable use to proposed home addition makes reasonable use Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 5. Adjournment Chair Boguszewski adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.

6 Agenda Date: 7/9/2014 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE BOARD ACTION Agenda Item: 4 Division Approval Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item Description: Request by Michael Ahmann for a variance to Section (Accessory Buildings) of the Roseville City Code to allow a detached garage to be constructed in excess of the maximum floor area (PF14-015) The action deadline for this request, mandated by Minn. Stat , is August 3, GENERAL SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Michael Ahmann Location: 2926 Old Highway 8 Property Owner: Michael Ahmann 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- and Two-family residential, detached LR LDR-2 East One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 South One-family residential, detached LR LDR-1 Natural Characteristics: Planning File History: The site is not located in a shoreland or wetland management area. February 12, 1979 minor subdivision creating present parcel boundaries (PF1168) 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. PF14-015_RVBA_ Page 1 of 4

7 DETAILED PROPOSAL AND ZONING ANALYSIS Mr. Ahmann s home was built in 1931; whether the existing detached garage was built at the same time is less clear, but at least the bulk of it seems to appear in aerial photographs from as early as While the existing 450-square-foot garage likely met typical household needs at the time it was built, it is inadequate by present standards. To meet his particular needs, Mr. Ahmann proposed to build a new detached garage at a size of 896 square feet. The site plan and written narrative detailing the proposal is included with this report as Attachment C. City Code (Accessory Buildings) limits the size of accessory storage structures in the LDR-1 zoning district to 85% of the area of the footprint of the principal structure on the property. Mr. Ahmann s home has a footprint of 816 square feet; as a result, the maximum floor area allowed would be 694 square feet. Such a garage would be large enough to accommodate two vehicles as desired but, after accounting for a reasonable amount of space for entering/exiting the vehicles and navigating around them, it would not allow for much additional space for the storage and working areas that are typical of residential garages. Planning Division staff believes that the zoning code s limits of the size of a detached garage relative to the size of the principal structure on the property is intended to ensure that the residential structure remains the primary feature of a residential property. But the zoning code seems to give an unintentional, two-fold advantage to properties with a garage that is attached to the residence because: a. there is no limit to the size of an attached garage compared to the principal structure s dwelling space; and b. the calculation of allowable accessory structure area does not exclude the attached garage area. While a household s need for residential space may be modest, Planning Division staff believes that the zoning code s regulation of accessory structures is not meant to limit a small home to a detached garage size that is inadequate for two vehicles in addition to a reasonable amount of storage and work space. In order to meet his needs and recognize the presumed intent of the constraints on detached garage size, Mr. Ahmann has agreed to revise his proposal to not exceed 816 square feet equal to the footprint of his home, although he hasn t yet finalized the revised plans. Mr. Ahmann had considered attaching the new garage to the house, thereby avoiding the size constraints, but the most sensible place for an attached garage would be on its southwestern side and the home is designed to take advantage of its exposure to the sun in that same location. 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 believes that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because replacement of a substandard garage with a more useful structure represents the sort of reinvestment promoted by the Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies for residential areas. PF14-015_RVBA_ Page 2 of 4

8 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because while the larger garage might equal the size of the home, the accessory structure would not become larger than the principal structure and the residential nature of the property would be preserved. As a way to ensure the proposal adheres to the purpose of the zoning code, an approval of the variance could include a condition related to the structure s design. Section B of the City Code lists five design enhancements for accessory structures, three of which must be used for buildings which are to be unusually large. The present proposal would not be large enough to trigger this requirement, but applying the requirement to the proposed garage would be reasonable because, by virtue of the variance request, the proposed garage would be larger than otherwise allowed. c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the larger garage would still only be designed for two vehicles, along with storage and working space, even though it would potentially equal the size of the home. d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. In Roseville, smaller homes tend to be older homes and, especially for residential properties developed prior to the establishment of the current minimum lot sizes in 1956, smaller homes tend to be situated on lots which are substantially smaller than the minimum requirements. Mr. Ahmann s home was built well before 1956 and well before he became the property owner, and the home may be smaller than average, but it is situated on a parcel that not only exceeds the minimum standards but that is significantly larger than average. Planning Division staff believes that the small size of the home and the large size of the lot are the kind of unique characteristics that justify the approval of the requested variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the detached garage would exceed the maximum allowed size compared to the principal structure, the proposal represents a typical residential improvement. 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. The proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above requirements essential for approving variances. Moreover, the only code-compliant way to build an adequately-sized garage would be to attach it to the home but, since the home was not designed to accommodate an attached garage, there is no suitable place to locate an attached garage. Planning Division staff believes that such a restriction represents a practical difficulty which the variance process is intended to relieve. Roseville s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on June 12 and June 19, 2014 to discuss this application. The DRC s only comment about the proposal beyond the above comments pertaining to the garage itself was to note that the existing driveway on the property is gravel whereas D of the City Code requires a garage to be served by a paved driveway. The Community Development Department s policy is to require gravel driveways to be paved in conjunction with expansions or replacements of the garages they serve. In this case, the driveway PF14-015_RVBA_ Page 3 of 4

9 is very long, and paving it would certainly be a significant additional cost. In an attempt to spread out the combined costs of replacing the garage and paving the driveway, a variance approval could include a condition to require pavement of the gravel driveway within a year after the completion of the garage. PUBLIC COMMENT At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not received any communications from the public about the variance request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Variance Board Resolution 105 approving a variance to of the City Code to allow the proposed accessory structure floor area to equal the 816-square-foot footprint of the principal structure at 2926 Old Highway 8, based on the comments and findings outlined in this report, subject to the following conditions: a. The accessory structure shall include at least three of the five performance standards established in City Code B to reduce the potential impacts of the large garage; and b. The driveway shall be paved to comply D of the City Code within 1 year of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new garage. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Pass a motion to table one or more of the items for future action. Tabling beyond August 3, 2014 may require 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 July 21, 2014 for a hearing before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Prepared by: Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.us Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photo C: Proposed plans D: Draft resolution PF14-015_RVBA_ Page 4 of 4

10 Attachment A for Planning File MAPLE LN LR / LDR-2 HR / HDR MILLWOOD LR / LDR HR / HDR-1 HR / HDR LR / LDR LR / LDR ST LR / LDR LR / LDR MANSON S OLD HIGHWAY TROSETH RD HR / HDR HR / HDR HR / HDR COUNTY ROAD C2 W HR / HDR HR / HDR-1 MR / MDR 2496 Location Map I / I Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: June 23, 2014 Site Location Comp Plan / Zoning Designations Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (6/1/2014) 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. L Feet mapdoc: planning_commission_location.mxd

11 MILLWOOD AVENUE W Attachment B for Planning File MAPLE LN Location Map Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: June 23, 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 (6/1/2014) 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 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division Notes Feet 1: 600 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Enter Map Description THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Page 1 of 2

13 Attachment C Page 2 of 2

14 Attachment D EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 9 th day of July 2014, at 5:30 p.m. The following members were present: ; and was absent. Variance Board Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: VB RESOLUTION NO. 105 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO (ACCESSORY BUILDINGS) OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE AT 2926 OLD HIGHWAY 8 (PF14-015) WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: PIN: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 29 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center line of United States Highway No. 8 (formerly known as State Highway No. 63), distant 540 feet Northeasterly measured along said center line of Highway No. 8 from the South line of said Northwest Quarter; thence continuing Northeasterly along said center line a distance of 91 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of feet; thence Southwesterly at right angles a distance of 91 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles a distance of feet to the point of beginning. Subject to highway over the Northwesterly 40 feet thereof. Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, City Code would limit the area of detached accessory storage structures to 85% of the footprint of the principal structure, or 693 square feet; and WHEREAS, Michael Ahmann, owner of the subject property, has requested a VARIANCE to City Code to allow a proposed detached garage to exceed the area limit; and Page 1 of 3

15 Attachment D 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 practical difficulty stems from the fact that the only code-compliant way to build an adequately-sized garage would be to attach it to the home but, since the home was not designed to accommodate an attached garage, there is no suitable place to locate an attached garage; b. The proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that replacement of a substandard garage with a more useful structure represents the sort of reinvestment promoted by the Comprehensive Plan s goals and policies for residential areas; c. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because while the larger garage might equal the size of the home, the accessory structure would not become larger than the principal structure and the residential nature of the property would be preserved; d. The proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the larger garage would still only be designed for two vehicles, along with storage and working space, even though it would potentially equal the size of the home; e. The property possesses the kind of unique characteristics that justify approval of the requested variance in the small size of the home and the large size of the lot, and f. The proposed detached garage would exceed the maximum allowed size compared to the principal structure, but it represents a typical residential improvement, so approval of the requested variance would not alter the character of the surrounding area. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to approve a variance to the maximum accessory structure floor area, allowing a detached garage to equal the 816-square-foot footprint of the principal structure at 2926 Old Highway 8, with the following conditions: a. The accessory structure shall include at least three of the five performance standards established in City Code B to reduce the potential impacts of the large garage; and b. The unpaved driveway shall be paved to comply with D of the City Code within 1 year of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new garage. 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 2 of 3

16 Variance Board Resolution No. 105 Michael Ahmann, 2926 Old Highway 8 (PF14-015) 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 9 th day of July 2014 with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager 9 th day of July Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Page 3 of 3