pm_070711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Kravse concurred with the intended construction proposed at this time and slated for 2008 construction, which would include a new educational wing on the north end of the existing structure; multi-purpose/media area (existing gymnasium); and accessory storage facility. Mr. Kravse advised that it was not the intent of the church, nor did funding exist, for any broader expansion, and those projections were only “best guess” scenarios and would need further refinement if and before they were pursued. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR King of Kings Lutheran Church, 2330 Dale Street, based on the comments and findings in Section 5, and subject to conditions in Section 6, as amended, of the project report dated July 11, 2007; with Condition 6.1.(a) amended to read: “The proposed media/classroom [and storage] addition shall be limited in size and scope…” and Condition 6.1.(e) amended to be clearly identified as an accessory storage structure. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Chair Bakeman noted that the case would be heard at the City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, July 23, 2007. d. PLANNING FILE 07-036 Request by Kevin Barrett, 3005 S Owasso Boulevard, and Chet Kurtz, 3015 S Owasso Boulevard, for a MINOR SUBDIVISION (Lot Line Correction) and a VARIANCE to Section 1004.015 of the Roseville City Code to allow shifting of the shared lot line (north/south) to alleviate a non-conforming driveway. Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-036. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of the applicants for a LOT LINE CORRECTION AND VARIANCE to allow the shifting of the common lot line between 3005 and 3015 S Owasso Boulevard to alleviate a nonconforming driveway. Mr. Lloyd advised that the lot line correction would place the property boundary on the proper side of the driveway, but that a variance would still be required to account for the substandard setbacks of the existing garage and driveway from the relocated property line. Mr. Lloyd reviewed survey inconsistencies, and detailed the request for the lot line correction to realign the shared property boundary 7.38 feet in a southerly direction to be consistent with the apparently erroneous surveys used for the location and construction of the existing homes. Mr. Lloyd advised that because some of the existing pavement serving the Kurtz property would still encroach onto the new Barrett property, that encroaching portion would need to be removed. Mr. Lloyd further detailed staff recommendations for removal of an additional pavement section to achieve a one foot (1’) setback from the property line, which appeared to leave a minimum of nine feet (9’) of pavement at its narrowest point next to the Kurtz garage, requiring approval of a four foot (4’) VARIANCE to City Code, Section 1004.016 (Driveway Setbacks). Mr. Lloyd advised that the Certificate of Survey by E. G. Rud & Sons dated November 21, 2006 and provided to staff in the spring of 2007 regarding the Kurtz and Barrett properties provided clarification on the actual property lines and driveway encroachment.