My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-09-14_VB_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-09-14_VB_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2016 9:50:25 AM
Creation date
9/16/2016 9:50:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Draft Minutes – Wednesday, August 3, 2016 – 5:30 p.m. <br />1. Call to Order <br />1 <br />Chair Murphy called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. and <br />2 <br />reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. <br />3 <br />2. Roll Call & Introductions <br />4 <br />At the request of Chair Murphy, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br />5 <br />Members Present: <br />Chair Robert Murphy, Vice Chair James Daire, Member Chuck <br />6 <br />Gitzen, and Alternate Member Julie Kimble <br />7 <br />Staff Present: <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke and Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd <br />8 <br />3. Review of Minutes <br />9 <br />MOTION <br />10 <br />Member Gitzen moved, seconded by Member Daire to approve meeting minutes of <br />11 <br />July 13, 2016 as presented. <br />12 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />13 <br />Nays: 0 <br />14 <br />Motion carried. <br />15 <br />4. Public Hearings <br />16 <br />Chair Murphy reviewed protocol for Public Hearings and public comment. <br />17 <br />a. PLANNING FILE 16-020 <br />18 <br />Request by Greg Sampson for a VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, Section <br />19 <br />1004.08 (Residential Setbacks), to allow a proposed attached garage <br />20 <br />addition to encroach into the required setback from a side yard adjacent to <br />21 <br />a street at 3005 Woodbridge Street <br />22 <br />Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 16-020 at 6:34 p.m. <br />23 <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the applicant’s request and staff’s analysis <br />24 <br />as detailed in the staff report and related attachments dated August 3, 2016. As <br />25 <br />detailed in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reported that the applicant proposes to <br />26 <br />replace the existing detached garage and its driveway to S Owasso Boulevard, <br />27 <br />with the attached garage with new driveway accessing Woodbridge Street. <br />28 <br />Mr. Lloyd referenced the written narrative from the applicant included as <br />29 <br />Attachment C; and shared photographic evidence of the current issues with the <br />30 <br />steep driveway and busy street access onto S Owasso Boulevard. Mr. Lloyd <br />31 <br />summarized the proposed new attached garage (lines 12 – 16) of the staff report. <br />32 <br />As requested in the applicant’s narrative (RVBA Attachment C), Mr. Lloyd noted <br />33 <br />that Mr. Sampson was requesting two variances: one for a 3’ variance from <br />34 <br />Woodbridge Street and another 20’ from S. Owasso Boulevard. <br />35 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that staff recommends variance for side yard setback as <br />36 <br />conditioned. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff could not support the proposed <br />37 <br />encroachment into the reverse-corner side yard setback area, as there were no <br />38 <br />findings of fact to allow an extra extension of the garage door to the front under <br />39 <br />current city code specifications. <br />40 <br />At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that to-date staff had not <br />41 <br />discussed with the applicant the future of the existing storage shed. However, Mr. <br />42 <br />Lloyd noted that both could remain on the property and still comply with city code <br />43 <br />allowing two accessory storage buildings. Mr. Lloyd opined he anticipated the <br />44 <br />smaller shed would remain, but again noted there had been no discussion <br />45 <br />regarding that. <br />46 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.