2013-03-06_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Page 3 Chair Gisselquist, in looking at staff’s analysis, concurred with them. However, Chair 96 Gisselquist noted that he had never been that fond of the design standard regarding 97 garage doors, and the proposed design from his perspective was not that out of the 98 ordinary, seemed almost expected, and was not an aesthetic issue for him personally. In 99 his review of the neighborhood, Chair Gisselquist opined that there was already sufficient 100 diversity with existing homes that should not make this design stand out significantly. 101 Chair Gisselquist noted, however, that this was strictly a legal issue, with the 102 Comprehensive Plan approved overall by the Planning Commission and City Council; 103 and a short time into the process, we shouldn’t be looking for ways to ignore or vary from 104 those approved design standards. While recognizing the points made and history of the 105 property pointed out by Mr. Kimmes, Chair Gisselquist opined that the applicant should 106 be able to find a creative way to comply with current code, and would probably vote to 107 agree with staff’s recommendation based on its legal rationale and anticipation that there 108 could be another remedy for the applicant. 109 Member Boguszewski concurred with the rationale pointed out by Chair Gisselquist; and 110 personally felt the design standards for positioning of garage fronts with the home façade 111 had little to do with how attractive a neighborhood was or was not, and admitted that he 112 found them one of the less thoughtful design characteristics in code and a misnomer. In 113 his review of the neighborhood, Member Boguszewski noted several newer homes on the 114 other side of Lovell with the garages projecting forward from the home façade, and 115 containing sufficient architectural features to make them look pleasing. However, as 116 noted by the Chair, Member Boguszewski reiterated that the code had been approved 117 and was in effect, and needed to be followed after having gone through the legal 118 approval process to support the Comprehensive Plan guidance. Member Boguszewski 119 opined that, if the current code actually limited the flexibility and interest of developers in 120 Roseville, a text amendment should then be considered, but the current code still stood; 121 and therefore he felt compelled to support staff’s recommendation to deny the requested 122 variance. 123 Chair Gisselquist suggested revisiting the code sometime in the future that may consider 124 applying one set of design characteristics for new developments (e.g. new subdivisions) 125 and another for infill home construction with an existing variety of home construction 126 already, and thus allowing more flexibility (e.g. infill design standards and new 127 subdivision design standards). While recognizing that a home is a dwelling and needed to 128 be family-friendly, Chair Gisselquist also opined that today’s garages are more eloquently 129 designed and more attractive, and not necessarily needing hidden. 130 MOTION 131 Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski, to adopt Variance 132 Board Resolution No. 95 entitled, A Resolution DENYING a VARIANCE to Roseville 133 City Code, Section 1004.05 (Residential Design Standards) (PF13-002);” as detailed 134 in Sections 4 – 6 of the staff report dated March 6, 2013. 135 Ayes: 2 136 Nays: 0 137 Motion carried. 138 Chair Gisselquist reviewed the ten-day appeal period and process, as detailed in the staff 139 report. 140 b. Planning File 13-003 141 Request by Verizon Wireless, LLC, in conjunction with property owners City of 142 Roseville and Ramsey County, for approval of a VARIANCR to Chapter 1011 143 (Property Performance Standards) of Roseville City Code to deviate from the size 144 limit for telecommunication facility support buildings at 1901 Alta Vista Drive. 145 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at approximately 6:02 p.m. 146