My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_09_05_VB_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012_09_05_VB_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2014 11:58:33 AM
Creation date
10/21/2014 11:58:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Variance Board Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Minutes - Wednesday, September 5, 2012 - 5:30 p.m. <br />1. Call to Order <br />1 <br />Chair Gisselquist called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and <br />2 <br />reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. <br />3 <br />2. Roll Call & Introductions <br />4 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br />5 <br />Members Present: <br />Chair John Gisselquist, and Commissioners Michael Boguszewski and <br />6 <br />Peter Strohmeier <br />7 <br />Staff present: <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd <br />8 <br />3. Review of Minutes <br />9 <br />MOTION <br />10 <br />Member Strohmeier moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski, to approve meeting <br />11 <br />minutes of May 2, 2012 as amended. <br />12 <br />Corrections: <br />13 <br />Page 1, Line 32 (Strohmeier) <br />14 <br />Typographical correction: “VARIANCE” <br />15 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />16 <br />Nays: 0 <br />17 <br />Motion carried. <br />18 <br />Member Boguszewski noted that, at the last Variance Board meeting and as reflected in the <br />19 <br />meeting minutes, the Board and he opined that a review of the current standard square foot <br />20 <br />limitation uniformly applied to all properties throughout the City should be reviewed. Member <br />21 <br />Boguszewski noted that the Board asked staff to get the wheels in motion to review the <br />22 <br />underlying methodology; and where it was appropriate to bring up to start this review in motion. <br />23 <br />Associate Planner Lloyd advised that staff had not taken that into consideration since that <br />24 <br />meeting; but had other code amendments they were recommending for next month’s meeting <br />25 <br />thought to be of a higher priority. Mr. Lloyd advised that, since this was not a priority as the <br />26 <br />problem hadn’t been encountered frequently, the review would be added to a future Planning <br />27 <br />Commission agenda to start the discussion process. <br />28 <br />Member Boguszewski recognized that it may not be a pressing issue; however, he noted that he <br />29 <br />didn’t want it to get lost in the process; since underlying principles could apply and tie to the scale <br />30 <br />of property affected rather than a standard formula, possibly a tier system. <br />31 <br />City Planner Paschke duly noted this requested review as a future Planning Commission agenda <br />32 <br />topic. <br />33 <br />4. Public Hearings <br />34 <br />Chair Gisselquist reviewed meeting protocol for Public Hearings. <br />35 <br />a. Planning File 12-015 <br />36 <br />Request by Ryan Lowder for approval of a VARIANCE to Chapter 1004 (Residential <br />37 <br />Districts) of the City Code to allow a reduced accessory building setback from the <br />38 <br />rear property line at 1468 Centennial Drive <br />39 <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at approximately 5:37 p.m. <br />40 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief review of the request for placement of a <br />41 <br />storage shed as close as two feet (2’) from the rear property line to fit in the space <br />42 <br />between the back yard fence and the existing, mature trees, requiring a VARIANCE to do <br />43 <br />so. Details of this review and recommended staff approval were detailed in the Request <br />44 <br />for Variance Board Action dated September 5, 2012. <br />45 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.