## Variance Board Agenda Wednesday, September 2, 2026 ## 5:30 PM ## City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 1. Call to Order ## 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Review of Minutes a. Review of May 6, 2026 Minutes ## 5. Public Hearing a. Request to allow a proposed front entry addition within the required minimum setback from the front property line and to increase the nonconforming impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) 6. Adjourn Page 1 of 23 ## REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Date: 9/2/2026 Item No.: 4.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Review of Minutes ## Item Description: Review of May 6, 2026 Minutes Page 1 of 1 1 2Application Information 3n/a 4 5Background 6n/a 7 8Staff Recommendation 9n/a 10 ## 11Requested Planning Commission Action 12Review the May 6, 2026 minutes and make a motion to approve subjec to requested corrections. 13 14Alternative Actions 15n/a 16 Prepared by: ## Attachments: 1. May 6, 2026 Minutes 17 Page 2 of 23 ## Variance Board Regular Meeting ## City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 – 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Aspnes called to order the regular meeting of the Variance Board meeting at 2 approximately 5:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 4 2. Roll Call & Introductions 5 At the request of Chair Aspnes, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 6 7 Members Present: Chair Aspnes, Vice Chair Campbell Jensen, and Member Cyra 8 9 ## Members Absent: None 10 11 ## Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke, Community Development Director 12 ## Janice Gundlach, and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 13 14 3. Approval of Agenda 15 16 ## MOTION 17 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to approve the 18 agenda as presented. 19 20 Ayes: 3 21 Nays: 0 22 Motion carried. 23 24 4. Review of Minutes: April 1, 2026 25 ## MOTION 26 Member Cyra moved, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to approve the April 27 1, 2026, meeting minutes. 28 29 Ayes: 3 30 Nays: 0 31 Motion carried. 32 33 5. Public Hearing 34 Chair Aspnes reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and public comment and opened 35 the Public Hearing at approximately 5:36 p.m. 36 37 a. PLANNING FILE 26-006 38 Request to Allow a Proposed Front Entry Addition within the Required 39 Minimum Setback from the Front Property Line and to Increase the 40 ## Nonconforming Impervious Coverage at 1211 Josephine Road. 41 Page 3 of 23 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Page 2 Senior Planner Lloyd presented the variance application for 1211 Josephine Road, 42 explaining that the request involved a small enclosed front entry addition and covered 43 porch area on a shoreland property. 44 45 Mr. Lloyd explained that the enclosed entry addition could largely be accommodated 46 administratively under zoning provisions that allow minor front-yard setback 47 encroachments. However, the covered porch area may require some reduction to 48 comply with administrative requirements. He stated that the primary reason for the 49 variance request was that the property already exceeded the allowable impervious 50 surface coverage, so even a small increase would require variance approval. 51 52 Mr. Lloyd stated that the parcel was originally subdivided as a small lot and 53 developed before the City’s current impervious surface regulations. He explained that 54 the existing house, driveway, and patio improvements already exceeded the current 55 25 percent impervious surface maximum. Still, that condition was considered a legal 56 nonconformity because it predated the current ordinance. 57 58 Using the area and aerial plans, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the site location near Josephine 59 Road and Lexington Avenue and noted the extent of existing development on the 60 parcel. He explained that the variance criteria analysis focused largely on the 61 challenges created by the lot’s small size and historic development pattern. Staff 62 determined that the enclosed entry addition represented a reasonable and practical 63 improvement for the property and therefore recommended approval of the variance 64 request. 65 66 Mr. Lloyd further explained that updated shoreland regulations adopted several years 67 earlier now require shoreline restoration whenever a variance either increases 68 impervious coverage or places structures closer to the ordinary high water level than 69 otherwise permitted. In this case, because the project would increase impervious 70 coverage beyond the existing nonconforming condition, shoreline restoration was 71 required as mitigation. 72 73 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the proposed shoreline restoration plan, explaining that the 74 restoration area needed to equal approximately 20 percent of the shoreline length, 75 which translated to roughly 30 feet wide and at least 10 feet deep. He stated that the 76 plan included additional native plantings and shoreline improvements intended to 77 provide environmental benefits while maintaining shoreline stability. 78 79 Mr. Lloyd stated that staff worked extensively with the applicant, builder, 80 environmental staff, the Department of Natural Resources, Ramsey County Soil and 81 Water Conservation District, and the watershed district to develop an appropriate 82 restoration approach. He noted that all reviewing agencies supported the proposed 83 plan as a reasonable form of shoreline restoration. He explained that while more 84 extensive restoration could theoretically occur, removing portions of the existing 85 riprap shoreline stabilization could exacerbate erosion or raise shoreline integrity 86 concerns. 87 88 Page 4 of 23 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd concluded by stating that staff recommended approval of the requested 89 variance, subject to the condition that the shoreline restoration plan be implemented 90 and that the homeowners enter into a maintenance agreement with the Public Works 91 Department to ensure the restoration area remains preserved and maintained in the 92 future. 93 94 Mr. Lloyd stated that staff received several emails from neighboring property owners 95 during the previous week expressing support for the variance request. He noted that 96 copies of those emails had been provided to Board members at the dais and that 97 copies were also available in the council chambers for members of the public who 98 wished to review them. 99 100 Commissioner Campbell Jensen commented that her question was primarily factual 101 and expressed appreciation for the proposed native plantings. She asked whether the 102 red-shaded area shown in the proposed restoration plan extended outward into the 103 lake, while the existing riprap wall remained in place as part of the shoreline. She 104 remarked that the plan appeared to extend the shoreline slightly and found that aspect 105 interesting, although not necessarily significant to the overall request. 106 107 Mr. Lloyd responded that he believed all of the proposed plantings were upland rather 108 than aquatic species and, therefore, would not actually extend into the lake itself. He 109 explained that the shaded restoration area shown on the plan was likely somewhat 110 larger than the precise planting area and that the proposed vegetation would remain 111 on the upland side of the existing riprap wall. He added that other shoreline 112 restoration projects could potentially include aquatic plantings, which may have 113 contributed to the appearance shown on the plan. 114 115 Commissioner Cyra added that he had previously completed a similar shoreline 116 restoration project at his own property and agreed with staff’s assessment regarding 117 the proposed approach. He explained that removing existing riprap and fully 118 regrading the shoreline could disturb significant amounts of soil, potentially 119 increasing sediment runoff into the lake. He stated that the proposed restoration 120 approach, therefore, made practical sense. 121 122 Commissioner Cyra further noted that one recommendation commonly associated 123 with shoreline restoration projects is the use of vegetated riprap, where plantings are 124 incorporated within the riprap itself. He suggested that the applicant could potentially 125 be encouraged to add some vegetation within the riprap area as part of the restoration 126 effort. 127 128 Chair Aspnes asked whether any previous variances had been granted for the 129 property. 130 131 Mr. Lloyd responded that he would normally include a land-use history identifying 132 prior approvals in the staff report. He stated that he could not recall the details of his 133 research at that moment. Still, he noted that, because no prior approvals were 134 Page 5 of 23 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Page 4 referenced in the report, he believed no prior variances had been granted for the 135 property. 136 137 Chair Aspnes stated that variances remain with a property once granted and noted that 138 the proposed shoreline restoration agreement would also remain tied to the property 139 to ensure ongoing maintenance and preservation. She expressed concern about the 140 cumulative effect of future variance approvals, explaining that while each request 141 may appear minor on its own, repeated approvals over time could significantly 142 increase impervious surface coverage beyond current standards. She provided a 143 hypothetical example in which impervious coverage could eventually rise from 40 144 percent to 45 percent, and then to 50 percent, through multiple incremental approvals. 145 She concluded by reiterating that no prior variances had been granted for the 146 property. 147 148 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the scenario described by Chair Aspnes could still occur if 149 a property owner later sought additional improvements that would require further 150 variances. He explained that any future requests would need to be evaluated on their 151 own merits and under the zoning regulations in effect at that time. 152 153 Mr. Lloyd stated that the approval of a variance for the current request would become 154 part of the property record but would not automatically guarantee, require, or prohibit 155 future variance approvals. He further explained that if the Variance Board approved 156 the draft resolution, the completed resolution would be recorded with Ramsey County 157 and would document the approved variance, the required shoreline restoration, and 158 the associated operations and maintenance agreement with the City. He noted that 159 future property owners and decision-makers would therefore be able to review the 160 recorded information on what had been approved and which obligations remained 161 attached to the property. 162 163 Chair Aspnes asked whether the proposed front porch addition at 1211 Josephine 164 Road would extend closer to the road than the neighboring homes on either side of 165 the property, noting that those homes also appeared to be located relatively close to 166 the roadway and potentially within similar setback conditions. 167 168 Mr. Lloyd responded that he had not specifically evaluated whether the proposed 169 front porch addition would extend closer to the road than the neighboring homes. 170 Referring to the site materials, he noted that the home immediately to the east, closer 171 to Lexington Avenue, appeared to have a smaller setback from the roadway than the 172 subject property. 173 174 Mr. Lloyd explained that his review focused more broadly on the purpose of front-175 yard setbacks, which is generally to create some level of consistency along a street 176 frontage. He noted that along this portion of Josephine Road, there was already 177 considerable variation in setbacks because the shoreline configuration caused homes 178 to sit at differing distances from the street. Some homes and garages in the area were 179 located much farther back from the roadway, while others appeared to be closer to the 180 traditional 30-foot setback that had existed for many years. 181 Page 6 of 23 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Page 5 182 Mr. Lloyd stated that because there was no existing uniform setback pattern along the 183 street, he focused his evaluation on whether the reduced setback would create an 184 unreasonable or incompatible arrangement of homes, rather than on exact 185 comparisons to adjacent properties. 186 187 Mr. Matt Kunz, representing Custom IKs General Contracting, stated that his 188 company was assisting the homeowner, Chelsea, with both the variance application 189 process and the proposed addition work. He stated that the project was important to 190 the homeowner and noted that she was also enthusiastic about the shoreline 191 restoration component of the proposal. 192 193 Mr. Kunz commented that the discussion appeared to be moving in a positive 194 direction. He stated that the project team was excited to begin work and improve the 195 property along the lakeshore. He then asked whether the Board had any questions for 196 him. 197 198 Commissioner Cyra asked whether Mr. Kunz and his company would also be 199 responsible for completing the shoreline restoration work or whether another party 200 would handle that portion of the project. 201 202 Mr. Kunz responded that the shoreline restoration work would be completed by a 203 separate subcontractor that specializes in that type of work. He stated that the 204 company selected for the project was Grove, which is based north of the Twin Cities. 205 206 Chair Aspnes thanked Mr. Lloyd for the clarification regarding the shoreline 207 restoration plan. She stated that she was familiar with the proposed plant species and 208 noted that most of them, including bluestem and dropseed, are prairie plants. In 209 contrast, the dogwood species is more commonly associated with wetter areas. 210 211 Chair Aspnes commented that she had initially questioned why prairie species were 212 included within a shoreline restoration plan. Still, they stated that understanding the 213 plantings as upland vegetation made sense and would help stabilize and hold the 214 shoreline area effectively. 215 216 Mr. Kunz stated that the project team initially considered removing portions of the 217 existing riprap as part of the shoreline restoration work. However, after discussions 218 regarding sedimentation mitigation and potential environmental impacts during 219 construction, the team determined that removing the riprap would create excessive 220 disturbance and complications. 221 222 Mr. Kunz explained that the original restoration concept included some work 223 extending farther toward the shoreline, as reflected in the red-shaded area on the 224 plans. Still, the team ultimately decided it was not worth the environmental risk. He 225 stated that the final approach focused on retaining the existing riprap and keeping 226 restoration work on the upland side of the shoreline. 227 228 Page 7 of 23 ## Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Page 6 Chair Aspnes closed the public hearing at 5:56 p.m. 229 230 ## MOTION 231 Member Campbell Jensen moved, seconded by Member Cyra, for the adoption 232 of Variance Board Resolution No. 180 (Attachment 4), entitled “A Resolution 233 ## Approving Variance(s) to Dimensional and Impervious Coverage Standards 234 Pertaining to a Home Addition at 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006)” 235 236 Ayes: 3 237 Nays: 0 238 Motion carried. 239 240 6. Adjourn 241 242 ## MOTION 243 Member Cyra, seconded by Member Campbell Jensen, to adjourn the meeting 244 at 5:58 p.m. 245 246 Ayes: 3 247 Nays: 0 248 Motion carried. 249 Page 8 of 23 ## REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Date: 9/2/2026 Item No.: 5.a. ## Department Approval Agenda Section ## Public Hearing Item Description: Request to allow a proposed front entry addition within the required minimum setback from the front property line and to increase the nonconforming impervious coverage at 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) Page 1 of 4 1 2Application Information ## 3Applicant: Custom by Kuntz, LLC ## 4Property Owner: Chelsea Tupy 5Location: 1211 Josephine Road 6Application Submission: July 28, 2026 7City Action Deadline: September 26, 2026 ## 8Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) 9 10Background 11This is a renewed application to a variance approved in May of this year because, during the design 12process that continued after the previous variance approval, the homeowner decided a slightly larger 13addition was preferable to what had been previously considered. The following report, therefore, is 14essentially the same as that reviewed by the Variance Board in May, only having been updated to reflect 15the proposal at its current dimensions. 16 17According to Ramsey County property data, the existing house was built in 1964 on a lot created in 18the Tilton Addition plat that same year, essentially splitting off the yard space belonging to the house 19immediately to the east of this new lot. The creation of these two lots in the Tilton Addition plat and the 20construction of both of these homes clearly predated any lot size, building setback, or impervious 21coverage regulations pertaining to shoreland properties that were established in 1975, so the lot area, 22the setback of the existing improvements from the ordinary high water level, and the impervious 23coverage are all legally nonconforming conditions on the property. As illustrated in the site plan included 24with this RVBA as Attachment 3, a small front entry addition is proposed which would encroach into the 25minimum required front yard setback and further add to the excess impervious coverage. 26 27Variance Analysis 28• §1004.09(b) establishes a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet for structures in the Low 29Density Residential district. The purpose of this requirement is primarily aesthetic--to preserve a 30uniform arrangement of houses along the streets that serve them. 31• §1004.09(c)(2) limits impervious coverage to 25% of a residential parcel in the Shoreland 32Overlay District. The primary purpose of this provision is to minimize the impacts of storm water 33runoff on designated lakes. 34• §1012.03(f)(5) requires a minimum 50-foot ordinary high water level (OHWL) setback for 35structures on parcels abutting a General Development lake like Lake Owasso. Despite the 36proposed addition being on the front (or non-lake side) of the building, it is only slightly more 37than 50 feet from OHWL. This fact isn't strictly relevant to the case, but it serves to help illustrate 38the extent of the existing nonconformities on such a small shoreland lot. Page 9 of 23 Page 2 of 4 39 40The enclosed portion of the proposed addition, extending to about 23.5 feet from the front property line, 41is nearly small enough that it alone could be accommodated without a variance through Roseville's 42Administrative Deviation process, which is designed to allow small encroachments. Additionally, if the 43proposed roof extending farther toward the street were less than four feet shorter than proposed, it could 44also be allowed without a variance by virtue of the fact that the zoning code encourages open front 45porches by permitting them with a front yard setback of only 22 feet. But the requested variance is 46necessary because even the small area of the enclosed addition adds to the already 47nonconforming impervious coverage, increasing the coverage from 36.7% of the lot area to 37.2%, and 48such an increase can only be considered and approved through the variance process. 49 50Roseville's Shoreland Overlay District mandates a certain amount of shoreline restoration as a standard 51condition of a variance approval that "...allow[s] a structure to be located within the ordinary high water 52level setback or that allow[s] more impervious surface coverage than the standard..." In anticipation of 53this requirement, the applicant worked with City staff for several weeks prior to submitting the variance 54application, and a proposed shoreland restoration plan is included with this RVBA as part of 55Attachment 3. Because this is the first time the City will need to interpret and apply this shoreline 56restoration requirement, Planning Division staff shared the proposal with water quality professionals, 57both internally and at other public agencies, for their review and input. The feedback was broadly 58supportive of the plan as representing a meaningful step toward mitigating impacts on Lake 59Josephine. Most of these professionals further recognized that, while removal of the rip rap and 60inclusion of aquatic plants below OHWL would align more closely with a strict interpretation of 61"restoration," such measures could also cause further harm by compromising the integrity of the 62remainder of the rip rap that is contributing to shoreline stabilization. 63 64The Shoreland Overlay District also includes the requirement that the Minnesota DNR be notified and 65allowed to comment on variance applications. Accordingly, Planning Division staff notified the DNR's 66Area Hydrologist responsible for lakes in Roseville, who also indicated their support for the proposed 67restoration plan. 68 ## 69Review of Variance Approval Requirements 70Section 1009.04.C (Variances) of the City Code explains the purpose of a variance is “to permit 71adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a parcel of land or 72building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the zoning.” Given the 73existing conditions on the subject property, there is no location for even a modest home addition that 74would conform to all applicable setback requirements and not increase the impervious coverage on the 75property. The Planning Division finds that this collection of spatial constraints on the property represents 76a practical difficulty that the variance process is intended to relieve. 77 78Section 1009.04.C of the City Code also establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five 79specific affirmative findings, as stated below, about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving 80the variance. Planning Division staff have reviewed the application and offer the following draft findings. 811. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff finds that the 82proposed addition is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents a 83standard improvement on a residential property and embodies the sort of continued investment 84promoted by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for residential neighborhoods. 852. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Although the 86proposed front entry addition would be closer to the front property line than other homes along 87Josephine Road, most of the homes on the north side of the street are on much larger properties 88and situated as close to the shoreline as possible, which has resulted in most of the structures 89having front yard setbacks that are arbitrarily larger than the 30-foot standard. And while the 90proposed front entry addition would further increase the impervious coverage, the resulting 91coverage does not appear to be any greater than that of the several homes similarly situated on Page 10 of 23 Page 3 of 4 92small lots. Planning Division staff finds the proposal does not meaningfully deviate from the 93purpose of the front yard setback and impervious coverage requirements. 943. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division staff 95finds the proposed front entry addition meaningfully improves the functionality of the home with 96about as much conformance with zoning standards as possible, and would thereby put the 97property to use in a reasonable manner. 984. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. 99Planning Division staff finds the dramatically nonconforming lot area and the lack of alternative 100locations for an entry addition to be unique circumstances that were not created by the 101landowner. 1025. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Although the 103proposed front entry addition would stand significantly closer to the front property line than other 104houses in the area, the arrangement of the other homes around the shoreline has already 105created an environment of arbitrary front yard setbacks and Planning Division staff finds that the 106variance, if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential 107neighborhood. 108 109Public Comment 110At the time this RVBA was prepared, Planning Division staff have not received any comments or 111questions about the proposed addition. 112 113Staff Recommendation 114Adopt a resolution approving variances to allow the enclosed portion of the addition to stand 23.5 feet 115from the front property line, to allow the unenclosed portion of the proposed addition to stand 18.4 feet 116from the front property line, and to allow impervious coverage on 37.2% of the lot area at 1211 117Josephine Road, based on the content of this RVBA, public input, and Variance Board deliberation, with 118the conditions that the applicant shall 119a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan, and; 120b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the restored area remains in 121place and functions as intended. 122 123 ## 124Requested Planning Commission Action 125Adopt a resolution approving variances to allow the enclosed portion of the addition to stand 23.5 feet 126from the front property line, to allow the unenclosed portion of the proposed addition to stand 18.4 feet 127from the front property line, and to allow impervious coverage on 37.2% of the lot area at 1211 128Josephine Road, based on the content of this RVBA, public input, and Variance Board deliberation, with 129the conditions that the applicant shall 130a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan, and; 131b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the restored area remains in 132place and functions as intended. 133 134 135Alternative Actions 136A. Pass a motion to table the item for future action. An action to table consideration of the 137variance request must be based on the need for additional information or further analysis to 138reach a decision on one or both aspects. Tabling may require extension of the action deadline 139established in Minn. Stat. 15.99 to avoid statutory approval. Page 11 of 23 Page 4 of 4 140B. Adopt a resolution denying the requested variances. A denial must be supported by specific 141findings of fact based on the Variance Board’s review of the application, applicable zoning 142regulations, and the public record. 143 144 Prepared by: ## Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner ## Attachments: ## 1. Area Map ## 2. Aerial Photo ## 3. Proposed Plans ## 4. Draft Resolution 145 Page 12 of 23 ## BELAIR CIR ## JOSEPHINE RD ## LEXINGTON AVE N ## FERNWOOD ST ## D ## U ## N ## L ## A ## P ## C ## I ## R 3027 1165 2985 1175 1183 1195 1199 1201 1211 1225 1233 1245 1251 1255 1261 1265 1275 1281 1287 1299 1270 1262 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 2960 2950 2942 2936 2941 2937 2933 2929 2970 1221 1245 1250 1244 1240 1220 1230 1231 2932 2938 2944 2941 2947 2950 ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (3/4/2026) For more information regarding the contents of this map contact: ## City of Roseville, Community Development Department, ## 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN ## Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, please contact 651-792-7044. ## Site Location Prepared by: ## Community Development Department Printed: April 28, 2026 0 50 100 150 ## Feet ## Location Map ## L ## Attachment 1: Planning File 26-006 Page 13 of 23 ## BELAIR CIR ## JOSEPHINE RD Prepared by: ## Community Development Department Printed: April 28, 2026 0 50 100 ## Feet ## Location Map ## Attachment 2: Planning File 26-006 ## Data Sources ## * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (3/4/2026) ## * Aerial Data: EagleView (4/2024) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: ## City of Roseville, Community Development Department, ## 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN ## L ## Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, please contact 651-792-7044. Page 14 of 23 ## RVBA ## Attachment 3 Page 15 of 23 ## 8133TS3833LS ## 4320FX4320FX ## 2840SC ## 7050DC ## 4343FX ## 6050FX 2668 16070 107010703670 11'-11 1 2 " 10'-6 7 8 " 14'-5 1 2 " 14'-5 1 2 " ## C ## L ## EQEQ 11'-11 1 2 " 36'-11 7 8 " 7" 7" ## C ## L 10'-10" ## LEVEL 1 0' - 0 " ## LEVEL 2 8' - 2 5 /8 " ## LEVEL 3 16' - 9 5 /8 " ## LEVEL 1 0' - 0 " ## LEVEL 1 .5 3' - 1 1 7 /8 " ## LEVEL 2 .5 12' - 1 0 5 /8 " ## LEVEL 3 .5 22' - 5 5 /8 " ## EXIS TING G ARAGE D OOR ## EXISTING WINDOWEXISTING ## WINDOW ## EXISTING WINDOW ## EXISTING ## WINDOW ## EXISTING ## WINDOW ## EXISTING ## WINDOW ## BOX WINDOW ## MATCH LAP SIDING ## 6X66X6 ## 6X6 ## 6X6 12 10 ## MATCH EXISTING PITCH OF ## GARAGE GABLE ## CEDAR TONGUE & GROOVE ## SOFFIT & CEILING FINISH ## NEW ## WINDOW ## NEW ## WINDOW ## VERTICAL PANEL SIDING ## PAINTED TO MATCH LAP SIDING ## VERTICAL PANEL SIDING ## PAINTED TO MATCH LAP SIDING ## MATCH EXISTING ## ASPHALT SHINGLES ## 4:12 ROOF PITCH FOR ## GARAGE EAV ## E ## MATCH EXISTING ## ASPHALT SHINGLES ## EXISTING 1X4EXISTING 1X4EXISTING 1X4EXISTING 1X4 ## WRAPPED JUNCTION BOX FOR ## SUSPENDED LIGHT IN CEDAR ## CONTINUE EXISTING LAP ## SIDING DOWN TO ## FOUNDATAION ## EXISTING 1X4 ## EXISTING 1X4 ## AZEK COMPOSITE DECKING ## ENGLISH WALNUT ## RISER LIGHTS ## 6X6 POST WRAPPED IN 1X10 LP SMARTSIDE ## BRUSHED SMOOTH ## 1X41X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X41X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## STONE OR CONCRETE ## FLOWER BED ## STONE OR CONCRETE FLOWER BED ## NEW DOOR ## & SIDELITES ## EXISTING DOOR ## 8133TS3833LS ## 4320FX4320FX ## 2840SC ## 7050DC ## 4343FX ## 6050FX 2668 16070 107010703670 ## 654 T RANSFER RD, ## SUITE 1 6B ## ST. P AUL , MN 5 5114 ## CUSTOMBYKUNTZ.COM (612) 990-2400 ## NOTE: A LL DI MENSIO NS ## ARE T O F INISH UNLESS ## OTHERWIS E NOTED ## (U.O.N.) ## ALL DRAWINGS ## COPYRIGHT 2 026 ## CUSTOM B Y K UNTZ ## DESIG N PHASE ## RELEASE DATE: 0 5/2 2/2 026 ## TUPY - ENTRY AD DITION ## CHEL SEA ## 1211 JOSEPH ## INE RD. ## ROSEVI ## LLE, MN 55113 ## SHEET 1 O F 7 ## A1.1 ## FRONT EL EVATION ## SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0 " 1 ## A1 .1 ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 16 of 23 2668 ## 4020FX 26610 3.5 12 ## C ## L 3'-10 1 16 " 4'-5 7 16 " ## C ## L 4'-9 1 4 " 8'-3 1 2 " 6' 7" 7" 4'-1 3 8 " 9'-6 1 4 " 6' 8'-3 1 2 " ## C ## L 11'-4 1 2 " ## C ## L 3'-10 1 16 " 4'-5 7 16 " ## NEW WINDOW ## CONTINUE EXISTING ROOF PITCH ## 6X6 ## 1X5 ## VERTICAL LP ## SMARTSIDE ## LP SMARTSIDE ## BRUSHED SMOOTH ## WRAPPED IN LP SMARTSIDE ## BRUSHED SMOOTH 1X10 ## AZEK COMPOSITE DECKING ## ENGLISH WALNUT ## MATCH EXISTING ## ASPHALT SHINGLES ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## 1X4 ## RISER LIGHTS ## MATCH EXISTING GUTTERS ## WOOD ## TOP ## EXIS TING ## STRUCTURE ## NO W ORK 2668 ## 4020FX 26610 ## 654 T RANSFER RD, ## SUITE 1 6B ## ST. P AUL , MN 5 5114 ## CUSTOMBYKUNTZ.COM (612) 990-2400 ## NOTE: A LL DI MENSIO NS ## ARE T O F INISH UNLESS ## OTHERWIS E NOTED ## (U.O.N.) ## ALL DRAWINGS ## COPYRIGHT 2 026 ## CUSTOM B Y K UNTZ ## DESIG N PHASE ## RELEASE DATE: 0 5/2 2/2 026 ## TUPY - ENTRY AD DITION ## CHEL SEA ## 1211 JOSEPH ## INE RD. ## ROSEVI ## LLE, MN 55113 ## SHEET 1 O F 7 ## A1.2 ## BOX WINDOW SECTION ## SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0 " 1 ## A1 .2 ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 17 of 23 ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 18 of 23 ## 1211 Josephine Restoration Plan ## Plan Details: Install erosion control blanket for soil retention. Plant 2 clump river birch, 13 red dogwoods, and 200 little bluestem, prairie dropseed, and blue grama native grasses. Spread native low growth seed in the dirt areas around the plants. ## RVBA Attachment 3 Page 19 of 23 Page 1 of 3 ## 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 duly held on the 2nd day of September 2026 at 5:30 p.m. The following members were present: _____ and ____ were absent. Member ____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ## VARIANCE BOARD RESOLUTION No. ____ ## RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCEs TO DIMENSIONAL AND IMPERVIOUS ## COVERAGE STANDARDS PERTAINING TO A HOME ADDITION AT 1211 ## JOSEPHINE ROAD (PF26-006) WHEREAS, the subject property is in the Low-Density Residential (LDR) District, is within the Shoreland Overlay District, is assigned Ramsey County Property Identification Number 03-29-23- 14-0009, and is legally described as Lot 2, Tilton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, City Code §1004.09(b) requires a minimum 30-foot front yard (OHWL) setback for structures on parcels in the LDR district; and WHEREAS, City Code §1004.09(c)(2) limits impervious coverage to 25% of a residential parcel in the Shoreland Overlay District; and WHEREAS, Custom by Kuntz, LLC, representing the owner of the property at 1211 Josephine Road, has requested variances to said standard to allow proposed a front entry home addition; and WHEREAS the proposed addition has an enclosed area, which would extend to as close as 23.5 feet from the front property line, and an open portion, which would extend to as close as 18.4 feet from the front property line; and WHEREAS the proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage from 36.7% of the parcel area to 37.2% of the parcel area; and WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (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 ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 20 of 23 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: a. Given the existing conditions on the subject property, there is no location for a reasonable home addition that would conform to all applicable setback requirements and not increase the impervious coverage on the property. Therefore the collection of spatial constraints on the property represents a practical difficulty which the variance process is intended to relieve. b. The proposed home addition is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it represents a standard improvement on a residential property and embodies the sort of continued investment promoted by the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for residential neighborhoods. c. Although the proposed front entry addition would be closer to the front property line than other homes along the north side of the street and, while the proposed front entry addition would further increase the impervious coverage, the proposed addition is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance because many nearby homes are on much larger properties and situated as close to the shoreline as possible so most of the structures have front yard setbacks that are arbitrarily larger than the 30-foot standard, and the resulting coverage does not appear to be any greater than that of the several homes similarly situated on small lots. d. The proposed front entry addition meaningfully improves the functionality of the home with about as much conformance with zoning standards as possible, and would thereby put the property to use in a reasonable manner. e. The dramatically nonconforming lot area and the lack of usable lot area between the OHWL setback and the sewer easement on the property are unique circumstances which were not created by the landowner. f. Although the proposed front entry addition would stand significantly closer to the front property line than other houses in the area, the arrangement of the other homes around the shoreline has already created an environment of arbitrary front yard setbacks and Planning Division staff finds that the variance, if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roseville Variance Board to approve the requested variances to allow the enclosed portion of the addition to stand 23.5 feet from the front property line, to allow the unenclosed portion of the proposed addition to stand 18.4 feet from the front property line, and to allow impervious coverage on 37.2% of the lot area at 1211 Josephine Road, based on the content the public record, public input, and Variance Board deliberation, with the conditions that the applicant shall: a. Implement the proposed shoreline restoration plan: and b. Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to ensure the resto red area remains in place and functions as intended. ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 21 of 23 Page 3 of 3 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ____; and ____ voted against the same. WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 22 of 23 Page 4 of 3 ## Variance Board Resolution No. ____: 1211 Josephine Road (PF26-006) State of Minnesota ) ## ) SS County of Ramsey ) I, 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 City Council held on the 2nd day of September 2026, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 2nd day of September 2026. ___________________________ ## Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager ## SEAL ## RVBA Attachment 4 Page 23 of 23