|
WHEREAS, the proposal by Mr. Badzinski meets the first two criteria listed under
<br />Section 1016.2203, the proposal is unable to meet the requirements of the third; specifically, a
<br />15% encroachment would only allow a legal encroachment of 5-1/2 feet farther into the bluff
<br />impact zone; and
<br />WHEREA . The Roseville planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the
<br />Eadzinski request on December 3, 2003, recommending (6 -1) approval of a 18 foot VARIANCE
<br />to Section 1016.220 of the Roseville City Code, based on the findings of Section 5 and
<br />conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated December 3, 2003;
<br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to APPROVE
<br />an 18 foot VARIANCE to Section 1016.220 of the Roseville City Code for Jim Eadzinske, 381
<br />South Owasso Boulevard, subject to the following conditions}
<br />a. The deck being a maximum size of 12 feet by 12 feet.
<br />The property owner locating and identifying in the field the top of bluff on the
<br />parcel for use by the City in determining the requircd setback.
<br />c. The deck having a minimum setback of 12 feet from the top of bluff`.
<br />d. The deck having a minimum setback of 3 6 feet from the ordinary high watermark.
<br />e. The deck must remain an open -air deck -- in the future no enclosure of this deck
<br />as a screen porch or expanded living area to the principal structure will be
<br />permitted.
<br />Shrubs and perennials must be planted between the bluff and the deck to screen
<br />the deck and provide a visual enhancement.
<br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
<br />Member ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
<br />and the following voted against:
<br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
<br />K
<br />
|