2014_06_04_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 – 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Boguszewski called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and 2 reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 2. Roll Call & Introductions 4 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Chair Michael Boguszewski; and Commissioners Robert Murphy and 6 Shannon Cunningham 7 Others Present: Alternate Variance Board Member Jim Daire 8 Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 9 3. Review of Minutes 10 MOTION 11 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to approve meeting minutes 12 of May 7, 2014 as presented. 13 Ayes: 3 14 Nays: 0 15 Motion carried. 16 4. Public Hearings 17 a. PLANNING FILE 14-013 18 Request by Diane Schmidt for a VARIANCE to Section 1004.08 (LDR-1 District) of 19 Roseville City Code to allow a home addition to encroach into the required rear 20 yard setback at 1836 Fernwood Street 21 Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-013 at 5:35 p.m. 22 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 23 June 4, 2014, to allow construction of a modest porch addition that would encroach 10’ 24 into the required 30-foot rear yard setback, with the addition standing approximately 20’ 25 from that rear property line. 26 Mr. Lloyd advised that, since the staff report distributed, staff had received one phone call 27 from a resident owning property nearby, expressing their philosophical opposition to the 28 use of variances in any circumstance; and staff had received an e-mail from another 29 neighbor, expressing appreciation of the condition in which Ms. Schmidt keeps her 30 property, and speaking in support of the variance request. 31 Mr. Lloyd advised that, after staff’s analysis as outlined in Section 5 of the staff report, 32 they recommended approval of the requested variance. 33 Discussion 34 Member Murphy pointed out a typographical correction in the draft resolution (Attachment 35 D) in “WHEREAS…” d, with consensus of the body to correct language from “…proposed 36 retail redevelopment makes reasonable use…” to “proposed home addition makes 37 reasonable use…” 38 Additional discussion included the makeup of the City’s Development Review Committee, 39 consisting of a representative manager of each City Department to review applications 40 and address comments or concerns before recommended approval or denial, or 41 designate any applicable mitigation measures. 42 Chair Boguszewski noted that, since the purpose of setbacks was to protect neighboring 43 properties, current wording requiring a 30’ rear yard setback and 5’ side yard setback – 44