071107_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 11, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Morass expressed his concern with the shed remaining as well. Mr. Morass also questioned how a pre-existing violation on impervious surface allowed for further violation as recommended by staff. Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing. MOTION Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Martinson to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 64 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING VARIANCES to Sections 1004 (Residential Districts) and 1012 (General Requirements) of the Roseville City Code for Curt and heather Dubbeldee, 2373 Victoria Street (PF07- 035); based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5, and detailed conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated July 11, 2007; amended to include an additional Condition “6.2.(d)” to require removal of the existing garden shed six (6) months after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Commissioner Doherty personal opined his support for inclusion of a rain garden at the front of the property to further enhance the nature of the property. d. PLANNING FILE 07-030 Request by Brian Nordling, 1689 County Road C-2, for a VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, §1004 (Residential Districts) to allow an addition to the attached garage and related driveway expansion that would encroach into the required side yard setback and create more impervious coverage on the property than the City Code allows. Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-030. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request to allow construction of a residential addition; with the proposed addition encroaching up to one foot (1’) into the required side yard setback and increasing impervious surface area on the lot by approximately 740 square feet for an overall total of 4,265 square feet. Staff noted that, since the staff report was distributed and following additional discussion with the applicant, there was no longer any potential encroachment into the side yard setback. Mr. Lloyd noted that the applicant owns the residential property at 1689 County Road C-2, and the initial proposal included a larger garage addition with an encroachment into the required side yard setback. Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant had made a conscientious effort to address neighbor concerns, resulting in the current, more modest proposal. Mr. Lloyd advised that, despite the applicant’s willingness to reduce the size of the proposed addition in response to neighbor concerns with the proposal, staff believed that the applicant failed to meet the “hardship” test. Mr. Lloyd further advised that it was staff’s opinion that existing improvements on the property including a two-car, attached garage, an additional garage stall and more indoor storage area could be developed without need for a variance. Staff recommended DENIAL of the request for a VARIANCE to Section 1004 of Roseville City Code that would otherwise allow the proposed residential addition, based on comments and findings outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of the project report dated July 11, 2007.