2015-07-01_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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