2015-07-01_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 3 perspective, Member Daire concurred with staff’s recommendation indicating denial and 96 suggested the applicant find a commercial building close by to house those vehicles.In 97 conclusion, Member Daire stated his support of staff’s recommendation to deny the 98 variance requests. 99 Member Gitzen commended staff for their analysis, and applauded Mr. Snell in wishing to 100 improve his property and enlarge the current garage space.However, Member Gitzen 101 opined that granting such a variance would be incongruent with the intended residential 102 use of the property, and other options were available for Mr. Snell beyond the requested 103 variances.In conclusion, Member Gitzen also agreed with staff’s recommendation for 104 denial. 105 After his personal review of the subject property and considering criteria for variance 106 review and approval, Chair Murphyalso concurred with his colleagues.Chair Murphy 107 thanked staff for their thorough andclarifying presentation. 108 MOTION 109 Member Daire moved, seconded by MemberGitzen to adopt Variance Board 110 Resolution No. 112(Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution DENYINGVariances to 111 Roseville City Code, Sections 1004.05 (Residential Design Standards), Section 112 1005.08B (Residential Setbacks, and Section 1004.08C (Improvement Area), at 887 113 Parker Avenue (PF15-006);” based on the proposed plans, staff’s input offered 114 during the public hearing, and the comments and findings as detailed in the 115 project report dated June 3, 2015. 116 Ayes:3 117 Nays: 0 118 Motion carried. 119 b.PLANNING FILE No. 15-008 120 Request by Rose Mae Richardson, owner of the property at 3137 W Owasso Blvd., 121 for variances to Roseville City Code, Section 1004.05 (Residential Design 122 Standards) and Section 1004.08B (Residential Setbacks, to allow a proposed 123 garage addition. 124 Chair Murphy opened the public hearing at 5:58p.m. 125 Senior Planner Bryan Lloydsummarized the request for a new two-car attached garage 126 on the front of the home and conversion of the existing one-car garage space into a 127 master bedroom, as detailed in the project report dated June 3, 2015. 128 As part of staff’s analysis, Mr. Lloyd noted that the proposed expansion of the garage 129 with a front-facing overhead door standing approximately 22’ in front of the house 130 necessitates the requested variance to current zoning code.However, Mr. Lloyd noted an 131 available option to rotate the proposed garage by 90 degrees, which could be 132 accommodatedon that lot,resulting in the overhead door no longer facingthe front and 133 therefore creating no need for a formal variance.With only aminimal encroachmentinto 134 the required front yard setback with that option, Mr. Lloyd noted that sucha minor 135 variance approval could be approved as an Administrative Deviation versus a formal 136 varianceprocess.Mr. Lloyd provided an example from a recent and local housing 137 developmentas identified in the project report. 138 Based on staff’s analysis and review of variance criteria according to State Statute, Mr. 139 Lloyd advised that staff recommended DENIAL of the requested variances as indicated 140 within the project report. 141 At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that, even with the side-facing 142 garagedoor option and additional driveway it would require, it still came nowhere close to 143 triggering the impervious surface ratio of 25% for lakefront property. 144 Member Dairequestioned if the 17’ extension beyond the façade of the residence, and 145 22’ extension beyond the existing single-family garage fell within the required setback 146