Laserfiche WebLink
Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to approve the VARIANCE to <br />Section 703.04 of the Roseville City Code, based on the comments in Section 3 of the <br />project report dated May 3, 2006. <br />Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 0 <br />Motion Carried: 3 to 0. <br /> <br /> <br />b.PLANNING FILE 3724: <br /> Request by George Schultz Trust, 597 South <br />VARIANCE <br />Owasso Boulevard, for a to Section 703.04 of the City Code <br />to maintain the existing non-conforming driveway, which is closer than <br />the required 30 feet from Kent Street. <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman opened the hearing and requested that Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd <br />provide a verbal summary of the project report dated May 5, 2006. Before the request <br />presentation by Lloyd, City Engineer Deb Bloom provided the Variance Board with an <br />overview of the City’s pavement management program. <br />Bloom indicated that part of the pavement management program required certain <br />driveways to be removed and replaced and those that are determined to be non- <br />conforming require either a Setback Permit of a Variance. This evening you have three <br />Variances to consider. <br />Lloyd provided the background on the VARIANCE request indicating that the driveway <br />at 597 South Owasso lies 22 feet from the property line adjacent to an intersection street <br />(corner lot). Corner lots require a minimum driveway setback of 30 feet (Section 703.04) <br />thus the request is for an 8 foot variance. <br />Lloyd indicated that the property owner prefers to keep the driveway in its current <br />location. Bloom indicated that the City is not removing the whole driveway and that <br />certain options (such as relocating/modifying drive location) do not make sense form a <br />rational perspective. <br />Member Doherty asked whether all three variances this evening were the same in their <br />request - distance from a corner side yard property line setback (yes). <br />Michelle Chickett, executor for the Schultz estate, expressed support for the VARIANCE <br />indicating the estate wants to sell the property and that any driveway reconstruction to <br />meet Code is bad timing. There are no practical alternatives and the neighbors will not be <br />impacted. <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to approve an 8-foot <br />VARIANCE to Section 703.04 of the Roseville City Code, based on the comments in <br />Section 3 of the project report dated May 3, 2006. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />