Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Variance Board Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 3, 2015 – 5:30 p.m. <br />1. Call to Order <br />1 <br />Member Murphy called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and <br />2 <br />reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. <br />3 <br />2. Roll Call & Introductions <br />4 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br />5 <br />Members Present: <br />Chair Robert Murphy, Vice Chair James Daire, and Commissioner Chuck <br />6 <br />Gitzen <br />7 <br />Others Present: <br />Alternate Variance Board Member Michael Boguszewski <br />8 <br />Staff Present: <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd <br />9 <br />3. Review of Minutes <br />10 <br />MOTION <br />11 <br />Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to approve meeting minutes of May 6, <br />12 <br />2015 as presented. <br />13 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />14 <br />Nays: 0 <br />15 <br />Motion carried. <br />16 <br />4. Public Hearings <br />17 <br />Chair Murphy reviewed the protocol for public hearings and subsequent process. <br />18 <br />a. PLANNING FILE No. 15-006 <br />19 <br />Request by John Snell, owner of the property at 887 Parker Avenue, for variances <br />20 <br />to Roseville City Code, Sections 1004.05 (Residential Design Standards), Section <br />21 <br />1005.08B (Residential Setbacks, and Section 1004.08C (Improvement Area), to <br />22 <br />allow a proposed garage and home addition. <br />23 <br />Chair Murphy opened the public hearing at 5:34 p.m. <br />24 <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized and reviewed the request as detailed in the <br />25 <br />project report dated June 3, 2015 and attachments. Mr. Lloyd reviewed various code <br />26 <br />requirements with the requested variances, and provided staff’s analysis of those <br />27 <br />specifics as a prerequisite for approval. <br />28 <br />In general, Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposal involved a room addition on the rear of the <br />29 <br />home; expansion of the attached, tuck-under garage at the front of the home; and <br />30 <br />conversion of part of the existing basement into additional tuck-under garage space, with <br />31 <br />a total vehicle storage space that could house up to a minimum of fourteen cars. Mr. <br />32 <br />Lloyd noted that the current owner, Mr. Snell, is a classic car broker, and while not <br />33 <br />related to the variance applications, suggested it bore noting that while residential office <br />34 <br />space is a viable home occupation, zoning code would not allow commercial inventory to <br />35 <br />be stored at a residential property such as this. Mr. Lloyd advised that the owner is aware <br />36 <br />of this, and has stated to staff that this proposal is partly intended to create enough <br />37 <br />garage space to move his personal vehicles and trailers inside versus on-street parking. <br />38 <br />Based on staff’s analysis and review of variance criteria according to State Statute, Mr. <br />39 <br />Lloyd advised that staff recommended DENIAL of the requested variances as indicated <br />40 <br />within the project report and to avoid further noncompliance for the property. <br />41 <br />Member Daire asked if the number of vehicles represented only the applicant’s personal <br />42 <br />vehicles, whether there were other items beyond classic cars intended to fill this garage <br />43 <br />space, verified that there was another detached garage already located on the property <br />44 <br /> <br />