2014-12-03_VB_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes –Wednesday, November 5,2014 Page 3 there were many text amendments in process that will need addressing dependingon staff’s 99 planning case load and available staff resources. 100 Mr. Biggs reiterated that the variance request, if granted, will serve to improve the current 101 aesthetic; and emphasized that it was not currently a large structure, nor was the new structure 102 intended to increase in size. 103 Member Cunningham expressed her personal appreciation that Mr. Biggs was attempting to be a 104 good steward of the lake and environment; however, she noted her concern was what the 105 Variance Board’s approval may mean for future implications. 106 Public Comment 107 Todd Hines, Builder for Mr. Biggs,Summit Design/Build,3116 W Owasso Blvd. 108 Mr. Hines asked Mr. Paschke if the applicant had approached this as rebuilding the current 109 structure as is, would the same variance process be needed. 110 Mr. Paschke responded in the negative, and revised the process to rebuild a pre-existing, non- 111 conforming structure in the same location with the same design, and only minor exterior changes, 112 but on the same footprint and basically of the same design.Mr. Paschke advised that staff would 113 have sought to have a new structure relocated, given its current proximity to the side yard line 114 and high water mark.Mr. Paschke advised that it was staff’s intent for the property owner to be 115 more conforming to coincide with variance recommendations, and giving more relief from the side 116 and shoreline.Mr. Paschke stated that he personally questioned why, in today’s world, a 20’ side 117 yard setback was needed, or the amount of building face currently proscribed.Mr. Paschke noted 118 that the DNR’s intent was to ensure visual impacts for a structure on a public waterway were well- 119 designed.From his perspective, Mr. Paschke opined that the design is almost as narrow as 120 current requirements, and worked well, and further opined that this meets the purpose and intent 121 of the variance and City Code regulations. 122 Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m.;no one else spokefor or against. 123 MOTION 124 Member Murphymoved, seconded by MemberCunninghamto adopt Variance Board 125 Resolution No. 109(Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution ApprovingVariancesto 126 Roseville City Code, Section 1017.17.C (Permitted Water-Oriented Accessory Structures) 127 of Roseville City Codeat 3088 West Owasso Boulevard (PF-14-028);”to allow a rebuilt 128 boathouse/water-oriented accessory structure to be relocated within required setbacksas 129 outlined;and based on the comments and findings outlined in the staff report dated 130 November 5,2014, as conditioned. 131 Ayes:3 132 Nays:0 133 Motion carried. 134 5.Adjournment 135 Chair Boguszewskiadjourned the meetingatapproximately 6:02 p.m. 136