pm_031203 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a. The deck being a maximum size of 12 feet by 12 feet. b. The property owner locating and identifying in the field the top of bluff on the parcel for use by the City in determining the required setback. c. The deck having a minimum setback of 12 feet from the top of the bluff. d. The deck having a minimum setback of 36 feet from the ordinary high watermark. e. The deck must remain an open-air deck - in the future no enclosure of this deck as a screen porch or expanded living area to the principal structure will be permitted. 1. Shrubs and perennials must be planted between the bluff and the deck to screen the deck and provide a visual enhancement. Member Stone asked if there were watershed issues (no, but the MnDNR will be reviewing the application prior to a Council action). Member Peper asked if the deck could be 16 feet wide but only 12 feet towards the lake. Thomas Paschke explained the neighbor to the east expressed concern over a larger deck that would block lake views and potentially impact on the edge of the bluff. Mr. Badzinski, owner who lives next door, noted the existing deck is an eye sore and unsafe. He would accept a 12'x12' deck as proposed by the staff, but prefers larger proposed 16' x 16' deck. Member Bakeman asked how long it has been owned by applicant (1.5 years). What other improvements have or are being done? (New garage, new basement, interior remodeling). No comments were offered from the public. Chair Mulder closed the hearing. Motion: Member Peper moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend approval of a 39 foot Variance to Section 1016.16A (Placement of Structures on Lots), a Variance to Section 1016.16B1 (Additional Structure Standards for All Districts), and a 18 foot Variance to Section 1016.22C3 (Nonconformities) of the Roseville City Code, to allow a 12 foot by 12 foot deck to the home at 381 Owasso Boulevard South, based on the findings of Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated December 3,2003. Member Bakeman stated she will not support the motion because of the encroachment to the bluff. This home is much closer to the lake than homes surrounding it. With no other improvements to the 60+ year old home, at a future date it could be rebuilt at a separate setback. Mr. Badzinski advised he bought the house to protect the view and protect the house from disrepair. The deck is a safety hazard. There is no intention to remove the house. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 (Bakeman) Motion carried 6-1 b. Planning File 3541: Request by Dan Norris for a Variance to Section 1 004.02D4 (Corner Lot Setback), Section 1004.02D5 (Dwelling Dimensions - Rear Yard Setback), and Section 602.06 (Parking in Boulevard Prohibited) to allow the construction of a 26 foot by 60 foot (1,560 sq. ft.) attached garage on property located at 1547 Sextant Avenue. Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested the City Planner present the verbal summary of the staff report dated December 3, 2003. Thomas Paschke explained that the house was built in 1954 on a 15,000 s.f. lot. In 1988 two cul-de-sacs were connected with a frontage road creating a corner lot instead of an interior lot. The setbacks changed to a corner lot. The existing garage now does not meet the corner side yard setback. He explained the proposal and the staff alternative on this site. Staff recommends a reduced depth from 26' to 24'. The hardship is that the lot became a corner lot because of a city road project. There are other large garages in the neighborhood, some with dual access on streets. Two drives could be constructed to this garage or the driveway could be reduced in width. Member Peper asked Thomas Paschke if the applicant has reviewed staff proposals (yes). Does this proposal eliminate trees along the frontage road (yes).