2013-03-06_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes - Wednesday, March 6, 2013 - 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Gisselquist called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and 2 reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 2. Roll Call & Introductions 4 City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Chair John Gisselquist, and Commissioner Michael Boguszewski 6 Members Excused: Member Peter Strohmeier 7 Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 8 3. Review of Minutes 9 MOTION 10 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist, to approve meeting 11 minutes of December 5, 2012 as presented. 12 Ayes: 2 13 Nays: 0 14 Motion carried. 15 4. Public Hearings 16 Chair Gisselquist reviewed meeting protocol for Public Hearings. 17 a. Planning File 13-002 18 Request by Richard Kimmes for approval of VARIANCES to Chapter 1004 19 (Residential Districts) of Roseville City Code to allow for construction of two (2) 20 new homes that deviate from the standard design requirements on one (1) un- 21 addressed lot on Lovell Avenue and one (1) un-addressed lot on Cope Avenue 22 between Dale Street and Grotto Street. 23 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at approximately 5:33 p.m. 24 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief overview of this request for approval of 25 VARIANCES to residential design standards in City Code, Section 1004.05 (One-Family 26 Design Standards) by allowing the attached garages of the proposed new homes to 27 project in front of the two (2) new homes. 28 As detailed in the staff report dated March 6, 2013, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the request of the 29 owner, Mr. Kimmes, of lots on Cope and Lovell Avenues, located in City Planning District 30 7 and sharing a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a 31 Zoning District classification of Low-Density Residential-1 (LDR-1). Mr. Lloyd reviewed 32 design standards for one- and two-family homes for garage doors not occupying more 33 than 40% of the building façade or total building front; and set back at least five feet (5’) 34 from the predominant portion of the principal use. Mr. Lloyd advised that the design 35 conflicted with the setback requirement, as detailed in Section 4.3 through 4.6 of the staff 36 report. 37 Upon review of the application by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC), Mr. 38 Lloyd advised that they had determined that the proposed design, while well within the 39 property owner’s price range, provided for no architectural interest on the face, roof or 40 sides of the structure; based on the fact that there are no practical difficulties that prevent 41 the design standards as required and there is actually no need for any variances. 42 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommended DENIAL of the requested VARIANCES based 43 on those detailed recommendations in Section 7 of the staff report dated March 6, 2013. 44