Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Variance Board Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Minutes - Wednesday, January 3, 2007 <br /> <br />1. Call to Order <br />Acting Chair Daniel Boerigter called to order the Variance Board meeting at 5:35 p.m. and reviewed <br />the role and purpose of the Variance Board. <br /> <br />2. Roll Call & Introductions <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br /> <br />Members Present: Commissioners Jim Doherty and Acting Chair Dan Boerigter. <br /> <br />Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke and Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd. <br /> <br />3. Approval of Minutes <br /> <br />MOTION <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter, to approve meeting minutes of <br />December 6, 2006 as presented. <br /> <br />Ayes: 2 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br /> Public Comment <br />No one appeared to speak on any non-agenda items. <br /> <br />4. Public Hearings <br /> <br /> a. PLANNING FILE 07-003 <br />VARIANCES to Roseville City Code, <br />Request by Jerald Ronke, 1311 Ryan Avenue for <br />§1004.016 (Residential Dimensional Requirements) <br />to allow a principal structure <br />encroachment into the required rear yard setback and impervious lot coverage in excess of <br />that allowed by the City Code. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-003. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Mr. Ronke to allow construction of a <br />new garage with structures connecting it to the principal building, with the proposed addition <br />extending to a distance of approximately thirteen feet (13’) from the rear property line. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the Planning Division did not support the requested variances; <br />however, could support corresponding variances on a smaller scale than currently proposed <br />by the applicant, as outlined in Section 5 and in accordance with staff recommendations <br />detailed in Section 6 of the staff report dated January 3, 2007. <br /> <br />Staff recommended DENIAL of the requested Variances, based on comments and findings <br />outlined in Section 5, and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated January 3, <br />2007. <br /> <br />Discussion included size of current garage compared to size of proposed garage; actual <br />calculations of existing impervious surfaces related to site plans as submitted by the <br />applicant; pavers installed as a turn-around in the front yard; and staff’s rationale for denial <br />based on proving a hardship related to impervious surface of the property versus size of the <br /> <br />