2012_12_05_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 5, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Lloyd, in his research, advised that he could find no history of an application for a 46 variance, and despite the technical reading of the ordinance and front/side designations, 47 it appeared that this was a situation of how the property had been understood in the past 48 versus strict reading of City Code. 49 Member Lester questioned the location of the existing garage and its current proximity to 50 the lot line. 51 Mr. Lloyd advised that, at its closest point, there appeared to be an approximate one foot 52 (1’) setback, with the detached shed in the area of the inside setback for a principle 53 structure. 54 Member Lester noted that the staff report indicated a fire at the home earlier in the year. 55 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that there had been a fire in the home earlier this year; and in the 56 process of rebuilding the home, the property owner found it prudent to expand the garage 57 within that same construction process. 58 Staff recommended approval of the requested variance. 59 Applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Wigfield 60 The applicant had no additional comment beyond that provided by City staff. 61 Public Comment 62 No one appeared to speak for or against. 63 Mr. Lloyd noted that he had received an e-mail this morning from neighbor in support, 64 and that all other comments were addressed in the report for the public record 65 Vice Chair Strohmeier closed the Public Hearing at approximately 5:43 p.m., with no one 66 appearing for or against. 67 Members Boguszewski and Lester spoke in support of staff’s analysis and the variance 68 request. 69 Vice Chair Strohmeier spoke in support of the request in this specific situation as it 70 abutted a park and should not impede anyone’s view as had been an objection in past 71 variance requests (e.g. Lake Owasso views). Vice Chair Strohmeier expressed the 72 sympathy of the board for the fire loss experienced by the applicant; and opined that this 73 variance sounded like a reasonable request. 74 MOTION 75 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Lester, to adopt Variance 76 Board Resolution No. 93 entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Variance to Roseville 77 City Code, Section 1004.08B (Residential Setbacks) at 1716 Maple Lane (PF12- 78 019);”allowing a twelve foot (12’) addition to the attached garage, which would 79 stand at approximately 6.5 feet from the rear property line at its closest point; as 80 detailed and based on the comment and findings outlined in Sections 4-6 of the 81 staff report dated December 05, 2012. 82 Ayes: 3 83 Nays: 0 84 Motion carried. 85 Vice Chair Strohmeier reviewed the ten-day appeal period and process, as detailed in the 86 staff report. 87