|
Variance Board Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013
<br />Page 2
<br />Applicant, Richard Kimmes
<br />45
<br />Mr. Kimmes advised that working he had been working with this property for several
<br />46
<br />years to find a house design that would work and was marketable, even before the recent
<br />47
<br />collapse of the housing industry. Mr. Kimmes further advised that the original intent was
<br />48
<br />to pre-sell a two (2) story home that would fit with the neighborhood and prior to the
<br />49
<br />current City code being in place. However, Mr. Kimmes advised that those homes would
<br />50
<br />not have been able to meet current code either; and those plans had not come to fruition
<br />51
<br />anyway.
<br />52
<br />Moving forward, Mr. Kimmes noted that there had been only minor interest in the lots or
<br />53
<br />any pre-sold homes to-date; and with decreased housing values, financially they were
<br />54
<br />unable to make progress.
<br />55
<br />With renewed interest in marketing the lots and proposed homes, Mr. Kimmes advised
<br />56
<br />that after consulting with several realtors, they were in agreement that a maximum sale
<br />57
<br />price for homes as in fill would be $300,000, as existing homes in the area could be
<br />58
<br />found for much less, an average of $175,000. Therefore, to build homes at a higher
<br />59
<br />value, in order to meet current code for front façade aesthetics, the construction cost
<br />60
<br />would exceed the market, since the cost per square foot was the basic consideration in
<br />61
<br />today’s construction and home sales market.
<br />62
<br />Since meeting with staff and being advised of the revised code restrictions, Mr. Kimmes
<br />63
<br />noted that they had reworked the design to improve the curb appeal, and consultation
<br />64
<br />with several architects, designers, builders, and subcontractors. However, Mr. Kimmes
<br />65
<br />advised that they were running up against the same problems; and noted that
<br />66
<br />approximately 90% of the existing homes in Roseville had garages in front of the homes,
<br />67
<br />with few exceptions such as at the Pulte development on Lexington, with those home
<br />68
<br />values selling for $400,000 - $600,000 that allowed for more creativity. For a basic house,
<br />69
<br />Mr. Kimmes advised that the entire floor plan would need to be rotating, and it wouldn’t
<br />70
<br />sell today. Mr. Kimmes opined that this design has great curb appeal, and while maybe
<br />71
<br />different from the City’s perspective, it would not alter the neighborhood. Mr. Kimmes
<br />72
<br />requested approval of the variance, assuring the Board that it would facilitate an early
<br />73
<br />spring construction for these two (2) new homes in Roseville.
<br />74
<br />Member Boguszewski admitted that he remained skeptical that this was the only floor
<br />75
<br />plan configuration available that could meet Mr. Kimmes’ price point, opining that it
<br />76
<br />seemed to be an extreme statement and hard to accept given that it was an open lot with
<br />77
<br />no constraints such as easements, sewer, trees, or walls; and further opined that there
<br />78
<br />must be some designer that could accomplish an appropriate floor plan that would still
<br />79
<br />comply with City code and meet the price point.
<br />80
<br />Mr. Kimmes reiterated his findings, noting people were looking for a nice, 3 bedroom
<br />81
<br />home that was spacious, and required 1600-1700 square feet, and with the market value
<br />82
<br />of lots in Roseville, it was not feasible to go beyond that $300,000 market. If unable to
<br />83
<br />build the homes as designed, Mr. Kimmes stated that the lots would sit there
<br />84
<br />undeveloped for a number of years unless the lot price was significantly reduced,
<br />85
<br />especially in that neighborhood with many existing homes actually built pre-war.
<br />86
<br />Member Boguszewski asked staff if this was the one and only code item that would make
<br />87
<br />the proposed homes out-of-compliance, or if there were other compliance issues.
<br />88
<br />Mr. Lloyd responded that the only other requirement, that the garage doors not be more
<br />89
<br />than 40% of the front façade, did not seem to be violated with the proposed home design;
<br />90
<br />and that no problems with setback or lot size had been detected by staff at this stage.
<br />91
<br />However, Mr. Lloyd further advised that the applicant had not submitted, nor had staff yet
<br />92
<br />reviewed a site plan for discussion and review at this time.
<br />93
<br />Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at approximately 5:54 p.m., with no one
<br />94
<br />appearing to speak for or against.
<br />95
<br />
<br />
|