My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_09_03_VB_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Minutes
>
2014
>
2014_09_03_VB_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2015 9:19:59 AM
Creation date
1/22/2015 9:19:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/3/2014
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 3, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that it was a standard code requirement, but other details specific to <br />45 <br />that property made the additional condition warranted. <br />46 <br />Having visited the site, Member Murphy opined that Mr. Walz had found a clever solution. <br />47 <br />Variance Board Member Cunningham arrived at this time, approximately 5:45 p.m. <br />48 <br />Applicant and Homeowner, Andrew Walz <br />49 <br />In addition to the staff report, Mr. Walz noted growing concerns in tolerating the location <br />50 <br />and configuration of their current garage, particularly in backing out of the current garage <br />51 <br />and sight lines while doing so directly into traffic lanes. Mr. Walz advised that the <br />52 <br />neighbors on the other side supported his plan, provided they could retain the Maple <br />53 <br />Tree, adjacent to the new driveway; and opined hat with the proposed plan, they could <br />54 <br />save the tree. Mr. Walz reviewed other constraints in locating the garage anywhere else <br />55 <br />on the limited space available, as addressed in his written e-mail correspondence dated <br />56 <br />August 20, 2014 (Attachment D). <br />57 <br />Public Comment <br />58 <br />Jim Badzinski, Owner at 385 and 381 S Owasso <br />59 <br />Mr. Badzinski spoke in support of this variance request by Mr. Walz. <br />60 <br />Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 5:47 p.m.; no one else spoke for or against. <br />61 <br />Member Daire referenced the helpful photos included in the narrative, helping him <br />62 <br />understand the situation and variance request; and offered his support of the request. <br />63 <br />MOTION <br />64 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Daire to adopt Variance Board <br />65 <br />Resolution No. 106 entitled, “A Resolution Approving Variances to Roseville City <br />66 <br />Code, Sections 1004.02 (Accessory Buildings) at 389 South Owasso Boulevard <br />67 <br />(PF14-021);” based on the comments and findings outlined in the staff report, and <br />68 <br />subject to conditions as noted. <br />69 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />70 <br />Nays: 0 <br />71 <br />Motion carried. <br />72 <br />b. PLANNING FILE 14-022 <br />73 <br />Request by Jim Badzinski for a VARIANCE to Table 1004-1 of Roseville City Code <br />74 <br />to allow a detached garage to encroach into the required front yard setback at 385 <br />75 <br />South Owasso Boulevard <br />76 <br />Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-022 at 5:49 p.m. <br />77 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request as detailed in the staff report <br />78 <br />dated September 3, 2014, and staff’s analysis of the variance request; and as outlined. <br />79 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that, based on similar reasons outlined by Senior Planner Lloyd, lots <br />80 <br />developed in the early 1900’s and built in the 1930’s to 1940’s as cabins and on smaller <br />81 <br />lots, provided very little area to achieve property setbacks as per City Code. <br />82 <br />Mr. Paschke advised the Commission that, since the original proposal, staff made a slight <br />83 <br />modification allowing more room and a clearer view on the north and east sides as <br />84 <br />vehicles come up S Owasso, but still providing ample setback. Mr. Paschke noted that <br />85 <br />the intent of the Development Review Committee (DRC) was to achieve enough driveway <br />86 <br />depth to park one to two vehicles and get them off the street. Upon presentation of the <br />87 <br />proposed revision to the applicants, as outlined in the staff report, lines 102 – 117, Mr. <br />88 <br />Paschke advised that they were able to achieve this goal with the larger garage as <br />89 <br />revised. <br />90 <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed minimum driveway calculations and conditions based on the final <br />91 <br />amount of impervious coverage or overage and the process to contain storm water as <br />92 <br />alluded to in the previous presentation as well. <br />93 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.