2015-07-01_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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