Laserfiche WebLink
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 3, 2015 <br />Page 6 <br />recommended by staff with further protrusion into the side yard setback even less <br />251 <br />desirable than the original proposal. <br />252 <br />Member Gitzen concurred with Chair Murphy, based on pushing it closer to the side yard <br />253 <br />setback and more concrete needed with the staff recommended option; and also in <br />254 <br />consideration of the northern side neighbor’s concerns with that design. In his review of <br />255 <br />the subject property and surrounding neighborhood, Member Gitzen noted there was <br />256 <br />already a variety of homes with front-facing garage doors. <br />257 <br />Chair Murphy thanked staff for including comparison photos in their project report <br />258 <br />showing other garages in the neighborhood. <br />259 <br />Member Daire concurred with his colleagues, even though he may be relating <br />260 <br />emotionally or sympathetically with the property owners and sharing their desire to age- <br />261 <br />in-place. Given the Minnesota weather variables, Member Daire opined that it made <br />262 <br />sense to have a two-car versus one-car garage; and to address future mobility issues for <br />263 <br />property owners. Member Daire further opined that staff did an excellent job analyzing <br />264 <br />this request, but noted his inability to be as objective as they were in considering this <br />265 <br />from his age and perspective. <br />266 <br />MOTION <br />267 <br />Notwithstanding the recommendation of Planning Division staff, Member Daire <br />268 <br />moved, seconded by Member Murphy to APPROVE AND AMEND DRAFT Variance <br />269 <br />Board Resolution No. 113 (Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution DENYING <br />270 <br />GRANTING (Line 8 and line 57) Variances to Roseville City “Code, Sections 1004.05 <br />271 <br />and 1004.08.B, at 3137 W Owasso Boulevard (PF15-008);” based on the proposed <br />272 <br />plans and input offered by the applicant <br />; amended as follows: <br />273 <br /> <br />Strike lines 27 – 52; and directing staff to redraft the resolution accordingly <br /> <br />274 <br />with findings as noted below: <br /> <br />275 <br /> <br /> The applicant’s proposal resulted in less versus more concrete and impervious <br />276 <br />surface on the lot; and rotating the garage façade did not present reasonable <br />277 <br />options (Current Finding D); <br />278 <br /> <br /> The applicant’s proposal resulted in a good trade-off to avoid further <br />279 <br />protrusion into side and front yard setbacks; <br />280 <br /> <br /> While the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to enhance the residential <br />281 <br />character and walkability, the applicant’s proposal meets the character of the <br />282 <br />neighborhood containing existing multiple examples of front-loading garage <br />283 <br />doors (Current Finding F); <br />284 <br /> <br /> The applicant’s proposal meets the City’s desire to provide housing stock in <br />285 <br />the community to improve mobility and allow aging-in-place of existing and/or <br />286 <br />future residents; <br />287 <br /> <br /> The applicant’s proposal addresses maintenance issues with Minnesota <br />288 <br />weather by allowing for indoor storage of two versus one vehicle; <br />289 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />290 <br />Nays: 0 <br />291 <br />Motion carried. <br />292 <br />MOTION <br />293 <br />Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to Adopt VB Resolution No. 113 <br />294 <br />as amended. <br />295 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />296 <br />Nays: 0 <br />297 <br />Motion carried. <br />298 <br /> <br />