My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-03-02_VB_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
2016-03-02_VB_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2016 11:21:39 AM
Creation date
4/11/2016 11:21:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that any specific details such as that were yet to be determined. Mr. <br />198 <br />Lloyd noted that this variance request had originated with the applicant coming forward <br />199 <br />with a building permit application by their contractor, and had prompted their need to <br />200 <br />apply for a variance before that could be approved. Mr. Lloyd advised that if the request <br />201 <br />proceeded, city engineering staff would need to review the application and determine if <br />202 <br />the proposed garage exceeded impervious surface calculations. <br />203 <br />MOTION <br />204 <br />Member Gitzen moved, seconded by Member Murphy to approve VB Resolution <br />205 <br />No. 119 (RVBA Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution DENYING a Variance to <br />206 <br />Roseville City Code, Section 1004.05 at 1967 Prior Avenue (PF16-008);” based on <br />207 <br />findings as listed in the resolution; and based on comments and analysis outlined <br />208 <br />in the staff report dated March 2, 2016. <br />209 <br />Not being aware of the nature of the applicant’s business, Member Daire reiterated the <br />210 <br />unknown as to the applicant’s intent to operate their business out of their home in that <br />211 <br />tandem garage space. However, with the owner unavailable to respond, Member Daire <br />212 <br />stated that he could only conclude that the owner’s intent is to shelter their vehicles and <br />213 <br />boat. While finding that laudable versus outside storage, Member Daire stated that he <br />214 <br />remained conflicted with that perceived intent and staff’s recommendation if the goal was <br />215 <br />to use the tandem garage for storage, which the neighbor from across the street, Ms. <br />216 <br />Viken, had verified. Member Daire stated that he would abstain from voting on this, <br />217 <br />opining that he would like to pursue it further if the owner could provide additional <br />218 <br />information as to whether or not they intended to manufacture countertops, their apparent <br />219 <br />business, in the garage space as a permitted use. <br />220 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that such an activity was not allowable in this zoning district or as a <br />221 <br />home occupation. <br />222 <br />With that additional knowledge, Member Daire advised that he would then agree with <br />223 <br />staff’s recommendation for denial. <br />224 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />225 <br />Nays: 0 <br />226 <br />Motion carried. <br />227 <br />Adjournment <br />5. <br />228 <br />Chair Murphy adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. <br />229 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.