pm_001108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Welsch presented staff's recommendations and findings regarding the proposal and the staff recommendation to deny the variance because of the lack of a physical hardship for the increased size of the structure, and because alternatives do exist. Chair Klausing asked for details regarding the existing tool shed and detached garage; how many buildings are allowed? (two). Member Mulder wanted details on the new foundation under construction - what is the history? Member Mulder asked what was the maximum square footage allowed and does the garage meet this standard? Member Olson asked what the maximum playhouse size could be and how the city treated it (a detached structure). Member Wilke asked what hardships the applicant identified. Member Mulder asked if the applicant could fix up the old shed instead of tearing it down. The applicant, Ms Ericksen, said she felt the application was not presented very clearly. She felt the application and interpretation of the Code was confusing. Ms. Ericksen said the original shed was an eyesore and falling down. The yard is large. There is lots of equipment now outside the garage. The garage would be replaced in the next year. Chair Klausing stated the size of the structure is a concern to the Commission. He asked if a large garage could be constructed and a smaller shed building. Member Mulder asked if the applicant understood that the garage could be expanded. Ms. Ericksen said she was not in favor of expanding the garage (it would look larger than the house). Ms. Ericksen said she was surprised the shed and the variance were such an issue. Chair Klausing stated the lot is extremely large and not a problem in relation to the building. No public comment was offered. Chair Klausing closed the public hearing. Member Mulder stated that was no hardship as defined in the Code. Alternatives exist (at least two). Chair Klausing explained the Code and the test needed to find a physical hardship. Other alternatives exist. Member Wilke agreed with Member Mulder; other options are available. Member Olson regretted the ultimate decision is to accept one large buildng instead of two medium sized buildings. Chair Klausing noted that he could not recommend approval of this application. Motion: Member Mulder moved, second by Member Wilke, to recommend denial by adopting Resolution 3272, setting forth findings in the case of the application by Natalija Ericksen, 2376 Cohansey Street, for a 264 square foot variance from Section 1004.01A6. Ayes: 4, Klausing, Olson, Mulder, Wilke Nays: 0 Motion to deny carried. b. Planning File 3232: A request by the City of Roseville to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area from its current designation of Business (B) and Industrial (I) to Business Park (BP), a new land use designation. The Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area is generally located east of Cleveland Avenue, west of Lincoln Drive, south of County Road C2 and Brenner Avenue, and north of County Road C. A map of the specific parcels can be obtained from the Roseville Community Development Department. Chairman Craig Klausing opened the public hearing and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to