080107_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Page 2 Discussion included staff clarifying that there was no proposed decking over the easement, thus allowing for removal of that variance condition, as long as the applicant understood that any new decking or fencing must remain outside that encroachment area. Additional discussion included impervious surface ratios after pool and decking; with staff again clarifying that decks were not considered impervious surface, as water could drain through them; as well as the pool not being considered in impervious coverage calculations, as no water would be running off site. Applicant, Mrs. Drina Escobar Ms. Escobar provided three (3) Bench Handouts for Commissioners illustrating possible decking on the north side of the pool that would encroach neither into any required setbacks nor into the utility easement. These handouts have not been made a part of these minutes because their purpose was merely illustrative and the approval or denial of the variance was independent of these handouts. Ms. Escobar requested that Commissioners consider removing Condition 6.1.b, as detailed in the staff report, so that no encroachment agreement condition was tied to a variance approval. Mr. Lloyd advised that he had spoken to the City’s Building Inspector who was in agreement with the fencing attached to the pool, as long as the fencing was at a minimum of five feet (5’) higher than the ground in that location. Ms. Escobar advised that the additional fencing atop the pool would be an additional three feet (3’), for a total of seven and one-half feet (7-1/2’) from the ground. Mr. Lloyd reiterated that there could be no encroachment of pool or fence on or inside the encroachment. Vice Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Gottfried moved, seconded by Member Martinson to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 66 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING A VARIANCE to Roseville City Code,§905 (Swimming Pools), for Santos Escobar, 175 Burke Avenue (PF07-043);” based on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated August 1, 1007; asamended to delete Condition 6.1.b of the staff report, eliminating the need for a condition requiring an encroachment agreement; with the applicant verbally acknowledging their clear understanding that any new decking or fencing must remain outside the encroachment area. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Vice Chair Doherty advised the applicant of the appeal process time frame. b. PLANNING FILE 07-044 Request by Brian Kempton, 2619 Wheeler Street, for VARIANCES to Roseville City Code, §1004 (Residential Districts) and §1016 (Wetlands) to allow the construction of a larger detached garage that would encroach into the required side yard setback and exceed the allowable impervious coverage on a residential property. Vice Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-044.