090606_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 06, 2006 Page 5 improvements on the lot (i.e., landscaping, fences, etc.) and potential issues down the road if this variance was granted. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Doherty was not supportive of the application; noting previous discussions and his original skepticism at the time the Minor Subdivision was granted, and the Commission’s comments at that time related to development of the lot. Commissioner Doherty addressed the problems with a reduced-length driveway and cars parked on the driveway creating safety issues and impediments to drivers’ views of children playing in the area; and other visibility issues it would create. Commissioner Doherty noted that he may be supportive of a smaller variance specific to a garage, but ten or fifteen feet (10-15’) was too close for the entire structure and out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Boerigter opined that this was a difficult decision, but specifically recalled the meetings when the Minor Subdivision was reluctantly granted by the Planning Commission, and comments that the applicant shouldn’t expect to receive any variances to get the triangular lot to work. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that a home could be made to work on the lot, but it would not support a traditionally-designed home and would require creativity. Commissioner Boerigter concurred with comments of the neighbors that the plight of this landowner was due to the lot split, and had the existing home been moved to make this lot larger, it would be buildable. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the owner had elected not to move the existing structure, thus creating a lot they couldn’t sell due to prospective builders/buyers not being able to site a home. Commissioner Boerigter opined that a fifteen foot (15’) variance was too much, and without a specific design or plan to consider further, justification of a variance would not be applicable; thus he could not support the request. Chair Bakeman, while possibly considering a ten foot (10’) variance request; she could not support this request. MOTION Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to DENY a Variance to §1004 of the Roseville City Code for Charles Weleczki, 1822 Dale Court (PF 3781), to allow a future home/attached garage encroachment into the required front yard setback for the vacant parcel at Dale Court and Dale Street. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried/request DENIED. Chair Bakeman advised the applicant of the appeal process timeframe. c. PLANNING FILE 3785 VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, §1005.01 Request by Walser Automotive Group for a (Minimum Dimensional Requirements – Side Yard Parking Lot Setback) for their proposed redevelopment of the former Wally McCarthy Pontiac/GMC Truck dealership at 2775 Highway 35W. Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 3785. City Planner Thomas Paschke recapped the review/consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the Walser Automotive Group’s proposal, and the applicant’s pending renewal of an existing lease with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to allow parking of vehicles directly south of the subject parcel. Mr. Paschke noted that staff and the City Attorney would need to review the lease to determine how the City Code was applied – in