Laserfiche WebLink
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 05, 2008 <br />Page 2 <br />recommended condition to addressing this concern; issuance of Building Permits based <br />46 <br />on compliance and recommendations for options in conversation with the Building Official <br />47 <br />and applicant; and preferred options beyond lattice since it was located in the front yard <br />48 <br />and could better be addressed through landscaping efforts. <br />49 <br />Applicant, David Redish, 1990 Dellwood Avenue <br />50 <br />Mr. Redish advised that he and his wife were continuing discussions on the best options <br />51 <br />through landscaping height variations; and expressed confidence that a solution could be <br />52 <br />found in continuing to work with staff, and to alleviate concerns of the neighbor. <br />53 <br />Chair Boerigter requested that the applicant provide sufficient landscaping so the area <br />54 <br />does not resemble a storage space in the front yard. <br />55 <br />Further discussion included filtration and reduction of storm water runoff. <br />56 <br />Mr. Redish advised that he was also interested in achieving this reduction, and was <br />57 <br />looking at alternatives. Mr. Redish advised that he was currently working with the <br />58 <br />Ramsey Conservation District and they were awaiting a site visit to review options; <br />59 <br />hopefully allowing the shrubs to become part of a rain garden to address filtration issues. <br />60 <br />Mr. Redish further advised that he was considering reductions in, or alternate materials <br />61 <br />for, existing concrete walkways, while keeping budget considerations in mind. <br />62 <br />Chair Boerigter and Commissioner Doherty noted that their decisions to-date had been <br />63 <br />consistent, when property improvements were requested, to bring the entire lot <br />64 <br />impervious coverage within the thirty percent (30%) coverage. <br />65 <br />Commissioner Doherty noted that this lot may be part of the Gottfried Pit area that <br />66 <br />experiences significant drainage issues. <br />67 <br />Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. <br />68 <br />MOTION <br />69 <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter to APPROVE Variance <br />70 <br />Board Resolution No. 84 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING VARIANCES to <br />71 <br />Roseville City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts) for David and Laura <br />72 <br />Redish, 1990 Dellwood Avenue (PF08-042);” to allow construction of a sunroom <br />73 <br />and allow for addition of additional impervious coverage; based on the comments <br />74 <br />and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report <br />75 <br />dated November 05, 2008. <br /> <br />76 <br />Ayes: 2 <br />77 <br />Nays: 0 <br />78 <br />Motion carried. <br />79 <br />Chair Boerigter reviewed the appeal process. <br />80 <br />b. PLANNING FILE 08-043: Request by Steven Anderson, 1768 Shorewood Curve, for <br />81 <br />a VARIANCE to City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts) to allow the <br />82 <br />construction of a covered front entrance that would encroach into the required <br />83 <br />front yard setback. <br />84 <br />Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 08-042. <br />85 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request to allow <br />86 <br />construction of a covered wheelchair ramp at the front entrance, encroaching into the <br />87 <br />required setback from the front property line. Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed covered <br />88 <br />entry, including the necessary wheelchair ramp, could be reviewed and approved <br />89 <br />administratively if the house were not being rebuilt; however, as the newly-constructed <br />90 <br />house would be less than twenty (20) years of age, the Administrative Deviation was not <br />91 <br />an option. Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed ramp would extend five feet (5’) from the <br />92 <br />existing foundation closest to the front property line; and further noted that, while the <br />93 <br />ramp may not require a variance, the proposed roof over the ramp would not conform to <br />94 <br />front yard setback requirements, due to columns and footings to support the proposed <br />95 <br />roof. <br />96 <br /> <br />