My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
071107_VB_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Minutes
>
2007
>
071107_VB_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2007 12:02:54 PM
Creation date
10/9/2007 12:02:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/11/2007
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Variance Board Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2007 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing. <br />MOTION <br />Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Martinson to adopt Variance <br />Board Resolution No. 63 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING A VARIANCE to <br />Section 1016 (Wetland Setbacks) of the Roseville City Code for Kristine <br />Simonson; the Subject Property is currently addressed as 2950 W Owasso <br />Boulevard (PF07-033);” based on the comments and findings outlined in <br />Section 5, and detailed conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated July <br />11, 2007; <br />with Condition “d” amended to provide one (1) year for completion of <br />the construction of the driveway to accommodate overall construction on the <br />parcel, with staff to consider additional extension(s) by administrative action as <br />appropriate and applicable. <br />Ayes: 3 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />Chair Boerigter advised the applicant of the appeal process timeframe. <br />b. PLANNING FILE 07-031 <br />Request by Thomas Gross, 2613 Fry Street, for a VARIANCE to Roseville City <br />Code, §1004 (Residential Districts) to allow a residential addition that would <br />create more impervious coverage on the property than the City Code allows. <br />Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-031. <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request to allow construction of a <br />residential addition, with the proposed addition encroaching two feet (2’) into the <br />required side yard setback and increasing impervious surface area on the lot by <br />approximately 1,200 square feet for an overall total of 3,500 square feet. Mr. Lloyd <br />advised that Section 1004.01A6 (Supplemental Lot Requirements) require a five foot <br />(5’) principal structure setback from the side property line. The proposed two foot (2’) <br />encroachment could be accommodated with a Setback Permit, which was how Mr. <br />Gross initially sought approval of the encroachment, except that the resulting <br />impervious coverage necessitated a variance. <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that the subject property is ten feet (10’) narrower and nine-hundred <br />feet (900) square feet smaller than the Code requires, with the existing house on the <br />property having a livable area of approximately 980 square feet and an attached, <br />single-car garage. <br />Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request for a two-foot (2’) side yard setback <br />VARIANCE required in City Code, Section 1012.01B (Supplemental Lot <br />Requirements) and a 350 square foot VARIANCE from the impervious surface area <br />limit, established in City Code, Section 1004,01A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area), to <br />allow construction of the proposed residential addition on the property at 2613 Fry <br />Street, based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5, and detailed <br />conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated July 11, 2007. <br />Discussion included impervious surface coverage as it related to removal of the <br />garden shed; and size of the existing home. <br />Applicant, Thomas Gross <br />Mr. Gross requested clarification on removal of the garden shed and that it be subject <br />to removal six (6) months after construction is completed to allow for ongoing storage <br />during that time. <br />Commissions concurred that this was an appropriate request. <br />Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.