Laserfiche WebLink
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 14, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that no additional public <br />151 <br />comment had been received by staff since dissemination of the packets; nor had <br />152 <br />the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s Regional Hydrologist submitted <br />153 <br />any feedback to-date. <br />154 <br />Public Hearing <br />155 <br />David Olson, 3188 W Owasso Blvd. <br />156 <br />Mr. Olson noted his parents had resided at 3188 W Owasso for over thirty years, <br />157 <br />and with the recent passing of his father, he had taken over the property for his <br />158 <br />mother. Being familiar with the hill spoken of by Mr. Lewis, Mr. Olson advised that <br />159 <br />his main concern was in any sight line obstructions this proposed garage may <br />160 <br />cause him from his driveway, noting people typically drove down the street at a <br />161 <br />fast speed, and he would be unable to see traffic if the new garage extended out <br />162 <br />any further than the existing garage. Otherwise, Mr. Olson stated he was pleased <br />163 <br />to see that Mr. Lewis was improving his property, and not tearing down the main <br />164 <br />structure; and noted the challenges of the narrow and steep lot, even though he <br />165 <br />wasn’t aware of Mr. Lewis’s plan. <br />166 <br />Chair Murphy clarified that the current garage is set back 9’ based on the previous <br />167 <br />variance allowing a 14’ setback; with the proposal currently before the Board <br />168 <br />incorporating a 30’ setback for the proposed new garage. Therefore, Chair <br />169 <br />Murphy assured Mr. Olson that the new structure should actually increase his line <br />170 <br />of sight rather than decreasing it. <br />171 <br />For the benefit of Mr. Olson, Mr. Lewis displayed the aerial of his parcel; and <br />172 <br />water drainage being addressed. <br />173 <br />At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Olson clarified that, with the explanation and <br />174 <br />additional information provided tonight, he was totally for Mr. Lewis proposal as <br />175 <br />far as it had been explained to him. <br />176 <br />Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing at 6:24 p.m.; no one else spoke for or <br />177 <br />against. <br />178 <br />MOTION <br />179 <br />Member Gitzen moved, seconded by Member Murphy to approve VB <br />180 <br />Resolution No. 124 (RVBA Attachment D) entitled, “A Resolution DENYING a <br />181 <br />VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, (Section 1004.02) at 3180 W Owasso <br />182 <br />Boulevard (PF16-024); subject to comments, findings and conditions as <br />183 <br />outlined in the staff report dated September 14, 2016. <br />184 <br />Deliberation <br />185 <br />Member Gitzen noted his understanding of the variance request and interpretation <br />186 <br />by Mr. Lewis that his proposed building size was reasonable. However, Member <br />187 <br />Gitzen opined he still thought the maximum 1,008 square foot size was adequate <br />188 <br />and would allow for a garage of decent size. Member Gitzen stated he was in <br />189 <br />agreement with staff’s analysis as detailed in their report; and didn’t see the <br />190 <br />practical difficulties either. <br />191 <br />Chair Murphy concurred, noting other requests received by the Board for <br />192 <br />variances on W Owasso this year, and his observations of the area and inspection <br />193 <br />of the subject parcel earlier today as well as other structures and garages in the <br />194 <br />area. Chair Murphy agreed that the slope presented a challenged, but noted he <br />195 <br />observed some larger garages, some attached and some detached. However, <br />196 <br />Chair Murphy opined that a 30’ x 30’ building would suffice to accommodate <br />197 <br />current vehicles with the exception of the extended crew cab pick-up, which was <br />198 <br />difficult, but caused him to concur with staff’s analysis and recommendation for <br />199 <br />denial. <br />200 <br />Member Daire reviewed the maximum 1,008 square footage and the applicant’s <br />201 <br />needs for vehicles and storage; opining that while it would be tight, the maximum <br />202 <br /> <br />