2015-06-03_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 4 from the road as identified in the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Member Daire 147 also asked if the applicant revised their application to provide for side-facing doors, if 148 there would be sufficient space between the front stoop and corner of the garage; and 149 whether the existing floor plan could accommodate a 16’ overhead double-door garage. 150 From his perspective, Member Daire opined that the location of the garage door seemed 151 to be the main issue, and rationale for staff’s denial based on current zoning code and 152 Comprehensive Plan guidance. However, Member Daire further opined that if the 153 variance requests are denied, the other objective in another option besides this proposal, 154 the suggested option by staff would require more concrete paving to implement side- 155 facing doors versus them directly facing the street. 156 Mr. Lloyd responded that the option suggested by staff would encroach in the side yard 157 setback by approximately 2’, thus the ability for an Administrative Deviation versus formal 158 variance process; admitted that the optional placement with side-facing doors may 159 encroach further into the front yard, but could also be address via an Administrative 160 Deviation (up to 6’) per current zoning code requirements, and as detailed in the staff 161 report. Mr. Lloyd admitted that additional impervious surface could be a result of turning 162 the garage doors to the side. 163 Member Daire sought clarification, if these variance requests are denied and the 164 applicant decided to pursue staff’s recommendation for side-facing doors, that option 165 could be completed administratively without coming before the Variance Board again. 166 Presuming the revised design met the provisions suggested by staff under current code, 167 Mr. Lloyd confirmed Member Daire’s statement. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had provided 168 an additional option to the applicant to add the additional garage staff to the side, which 169 would encroach somewhat more into the side yard setback, and clarified that such an 170 option may or may not require formal variance approval versus only an Administrative 171 Deviation. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that such an option would only require deviation 172 from one zoning code requirement as opposed to the current multi-part variance 173 requests. 174 Applicant and Property Owner Rose Mae Richardson and Rand Thompson 175 Ms. Richardson introduced their architectural and design team: Greg Kraus (3150 Jersey 176 Avenue N, Crystal, MN) and Ron Sonnek (5601 W Loko Street, St. Louis Park, MN), both 177 with Sicora 178 Ms. Richardson, as a resident of Roseville since 1983 and current occupant of this older 179 home, expressed her interest at this stage of life in making the home work better for 180 aging-in-place. Ms. Richardson advised that they had considered other homes, but came 181 to the conclusion they liked this home and lot, and living in Roseville. With the assistance 182 of the design team to make this home a viable option, Ms. Richardson noted their 183 conclusion was to have a two-car garage for indoor storage of their vehicles, as well as 184 improving accessibility for the entry into the home as they age. 185 Ms. Richardson advised that she had brought three letters from her immediate neighbors, 186 all supporting the variance requests. However, Ms. Richardson noted the comments of 187 the neighbor to the north if staff’s recommended option to move the garage closer to the 188 north was considered. Ms. Richardson noted that that neighbor did not support that 189 option, as it would face his living room window and reduce light into his home on the 190 lower level. 191 Specific to design issues in turning the garage, Ms. Richardson deferred to the designers. 192 Member Daire sought clarification from Ms. Richardson as to whether she was concerned 193 with the location of the garage door as long as they could accommodate two vehicles. 194 Ms. Richardson responded that staff’s recommended option would require a longer and 195 steeper driveway from the sought side, making it harder to clear store, as well as bringing 196 the garage further front making it difficult to provide sufficient clearance from the chimney 197 and stoop. Ms. Richardson admitted her difficulty in envisioning such an option or it 198