2012_05_02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 2 square feet, and created the need for the variance application. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the unique 42 aspects of the existing structures and its configuration on the parcel. 43 While the proposed garage is barely larger than what would be permitted on the property and 44 appears to compare favorably with all the requirements, Mr. Lloyd noted that the problematic 45 portion of the application was in identifying any actual hardship preventing the applicant from 46 bringing the structure within City Code provisions by reducing it thirty-seven (37) square feet, 47 as detailed in Section 5.2 of the staff report. 48 Discussion among staff and Commissioners included allowable square footage of 1,008 and 49 grandfathering of existing structures as legal, non-complying until they were changed 50 significantly; how the maximum structure size was calculated at 1,008 square feet to ensure 51 no more than 85% of a lot was covered by a main structure’s footprint and related impervious 52 coverage of the lot within City Code guidelines; application of the 1,008 square feet across the 53 City of Roseville as the maximum limit; and whether any consideration had been given to 54 adjusting the formula to address unique situations and/or lots. 55 Mr. Lloyd reviewed rationale to-date in determining maximum square footages for main 56 structures and garages under Conditional Use Permit approvals, noting that a broader 57 question of scale had not been considered in the past. 58 Member Boguszewski noted that there was an accessory building in the neighborhood and 59 near this subject property (identified in Section 5.3 of the staff report) that was used for a 60 similar purpose and exceeded the 1,008 square feet. 61 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that this structure most likely pre-dated existing City 62 Code, again grandfathered in until a significant change was made to the structures. 63 Member Boguszewski questioned if there was any indication that the existing structure on the 64 adjacent property upset the visual harmony of the neighborhood. 65 Mr. Lloyd advised that he had not physically reviewed that structure or parcel; however, in 66 reviewing Ramsey County aerial photos, that structure appeared to be more industrial 67 aesthetically. 68 Member Strohmeier noted that the non-conformity was minimal, and questioned why the 69 1,043 square foot of the existing structure was allowed, and why staff was not insisting on the 70 1,008 square footage be met. 71 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Paschke reviewed legal, non-conformity 72 considerations, as addressed in State Statute; and advised that the law did not allow the City 73 to revert to past codes, but to allow what is existing today. 74 Member Strohmeier asked staff to provide similar case law mirroring this situation for 75 accessory structures that would provide the Commission with insight or perspective. 76 Mr. Lloyd advised that his only recollection for a variance similar to this for an accessory 77 structure was east of Langton Lake where a large garage structure was requested to park a 78 recreational vehicle inside; and he recalled significant reservations, but was unsure of whether 79 the application had been withdrawn, denied or approved. 80 Mr. Paschke, based on his tenure with the City of Roseville, advised that variance requests 81 typically were not related to oversize square footage thresholds, but were based in six (6) 82 criteria in the late 1990’s City Code for accessory structures; with changes in the Code over 83 the subsequent years to allow for greater flexibility for property owners, with some limitations 84 remaining in place. To-date, Mr. Paschke advised that he could not recall approval by the City 85 for square footage above the maximum outlined in City Code. 86 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Lloyd reviewed the process for the applicant to pull a 87 building permit based on tonight’s action of the Variance Board for denial or approval; and if 88 the variance was denied, the applicant would need to submit new plant to meet the square 89 footage limit in accordance with City Code. 90