Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Excerpt from minutes of July, 2001 Plannin2 Commission meetin2 <br /> <br />6(e) Planning File 3327: A request by Bauer Homes a Variance from Section 1004.02D5 <br />of the Roseville City Code for property located at 691 Heinel Drive <br /> <br />Chair Rhody opened the hearing and requested Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of <br />the project report dated July 11, 2001. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained that Bauer Homes has requested a variance from Section 1004.02D5 <br />(setbacks) from the Roseville City Code to allow the demolition and replacement ofthe existing <br />single family residence structure at 691 Heinel Drive. Bauer Homes proposes to locate the new <br />residential structure 10 feet from the rear yard (east) property line on this corner lot, requiring a <br />20-foot variance. Mr. Paschke further explained the definition of front and side setbacks. He <br />also explained that the Code is currently being reviewed by staff to improve the language. <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if the owner must meet the 25% lot coverage requirements (Yes). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if the Public Works staff has preference on driveway location (better on <br />Circle, but could be on Drive). <br /> <br />Member Traynor asked for details of site lines from the residences south of Heine 1 Drive. <br /> <br />Member Duncan asked if the owner could otherwise block the view with vegetation or fences <br />(Yes). <br /> <br />Steve Stravisky explained the intent of the Bauder design. He noted no actual house is designed <br />at this time. <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if there are options to build without a variance, Typically, the Planning <br />Commission would not recommend without a design. The Planning Commission normally states <br />there are no other options. (Thomas Paschke noted that conditions could be added. He noted the <br />unique nature of the site; there are limitations to the lot regarding the view of the lake). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if this request was creating a precedent for future variances (Thomas <br />Paschke noted that each project must meet the Code on its merit). <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if another review should occur (Yes, staff will review this site and <br />building plan at a Development Review Committee meeting). <br /> <br />Member Olson asked if the Certificate of Survey, noting that a 20-foot rear yard variance, would <br />allow the structure to be set within ten feet ofthe east property line (yes) and 30 feet from the <br />north property line (closer, up to 5 feet). <br /> <br />Keith Pederson, 685 Heinel Drive, explained that the distance from his house to the proposed <br />house is 15 feet. The proposal will block all others' views, the concern of the neighbors south of <br />Heinel Drive, <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked what was the separation between units to the northeast (24 feet between <br />Pederson home and neighbor). <br /> <br />Mr, Pederson requested that the Planning Commission ask for details of the house. <br />PF3327 RPCA (091201) Page 4 <br />