Laserfiche WebLink
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 3, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />succeeding in meeting their goals. With the proposed plan and design, Ms. Richardson <br />199 <br />noted that the driveway would be shorter than it is currently, meeting their desire to be <br />200 <br />sensitive to the lake and proximity of impervious surface. By pursuing an option that <br />201 <br />would add even more concrete and bounce heat into the house, Ms. Richardson opined <br />202 <br />their original proposal provided a much more straightforward approach, and would still <br />203 <br />not bring the garage doors up against the curb. Ms. Richardson noted their intent, <br />204 <br />following this year’s proposed construction, to then address future landscaping to soften <br />205 <br />the front and provide a sitting area in that front yard area. <br />206 <br />Ron Sonnek, Sicora <br />207 <br />Mr. Sonnek displayed a larger copy of the proposed plans, and reviewed advantages and <br />208 <br />disadvantages with the proposed option versus staff’s recommended option with side <br />209 <br />yard setbacks. Mr. Sonnek opined that by pursuing staff’s option it would abut against the <br />210 <br />side yard setback if not actually encroach onto their property, resulting in it not being an <br />211 <br />option. Mr. Sonnek spoke in support of the impervious surface involved with the proposed <br />212 <br />design versus the extensive increase if staff’s recommendation was pursued. Mr. Sonnek <br />213 <br />recognized that the forward-facing garage door design was problematic in Roseville, as it <br />214 <br />was becoming in other metropolitan communities as well. However, in addressing and <br />215 <br />providing examples of the façade products and options chosen by Ms. Richardson, Mr. <br />216 <br />Sonnek opined that the aesthetics of the garage would more than compensate for those <br />217 <br />concerns. <br />218 <br />Ms. Richardson also noted that she had committed to a design providing additional <br />219 <br />windows in the garage, even though they provided no useful function, but providing a <br />220 <br />more attractive façade for the garage and better tying the garage into the home’s south <br />221 <br />side aesthetics. <br />222 <br />Greg Kraus, Sicora <br />223 <br />By using the enlarged site plan, Mr. Kraus addressed the complications if the garage <br />224 <br />design was turned 90 degrees as recommended by staff. Mr. Kraus advised that <br />225 <br />throughout the design process, many options had been considered, but with the goal of <br />226 <br />aging-in-place for this residence, the conclusion by all parties had been that this was the <br />227 <br />best option. Further addressing the recommended staff option to turn the garage front, <br />228 <br />Mr. Sicora noted issues in extending the garage further into the front yard and resulting <br />229 <br />location of the landing at the base of the concrete stoop and grade issues it created. <br />230 <br />In addressing that additional landing space requirement in optional design, Member Daire <br />231 <br />reviewed the actual footages. <br />232 <br />City Planner Paschke verified that the front yard setback for the current zoning code was <br />233 <br />30’, and the applicant’s proposed garage would fall at 22’. <br />234 <br />Ms. Richardson respectfully requested that the Variance Board grant the variance <br />235 <br />requests as proposed. <br />236 <br />Public Comment <br />237 <br />At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had received no public <br />238 <br />comments since distribution of the meeting materials. <br />239 <br />Ms. Richardson provided three letters of support for the record from her immediate <br />240 <br />neighbors, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Those written comments consisted <br />241 <br />of form letters of support, signed by: Shawn O’Connell, 3138 W Owasso Blvd.; Sue <br />242 <br />Chaplin and Stephen J. Chaplin, 4151 W Owasso Blvd.; and Jeannette Tate, 3125 W <br />243 <br />Owasso Blvd. <br />244 <br />Chair Murphy closed the public hearing at approximately 6:25 p.m.; with no one <br />245 <br />appearing for or against. <br />246 <br />Chair Murphy admitted he was personally wrestling with less versus more concrete; and <br />247 <br />found himself in favor of granting the variance requested for their proposed design. Even <br />248 <br />though it required some challenges with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals, Chair <br />249 <br />Murphy opined that they seemed to him to be a good trade-off; and he found the option <br />250 <br /> <br />