090308_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Lloyd apologized for not including photographs in packet materials, and displayed them at this time for further clarification; advising that the survey indicated a ten foot (10’) difference, from 869’ – 859’ over the course of 75’. Applicants, James Stibal and Ann Gerold Stibal, 472 Bayview Drive Mr. and Mrs. Stibal advised that the current eight foot (8’) deck provided no protection from sun or rain, limiting their use, in addition to not allowing for safe navigation around deck furnishings. Mr. Stibal advised that consideration of increasing the patio at ground level was not feasible due to the slope of the lot. Chair Boerigter sought additional information from the applicant on proposed future use (i.e., enclosure, such as an awning for shade). Mr. Stibal advised that they may consider a gazebo on the deck in the future. Chair Boerigter sought information on comments from adjacent neighbors and impacts to their property. Ms. Gerold Stibal advised that, due to the extensive foliage between property owners, neighbors had been in support of the deck extension plans of the Stibal’s, after confirming that their views would not be impacted. Ms. Gerold Stibal indicated that the adjoining neighbors had been consulted before and after the survey, and remained in support. Mr. Lloyd confirmed that staff had received no comment from the public. Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Boerigter to APPROVE Variance Board Resolution No. 81 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING a VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts) for Ann Gerold Stibal, 472 Bayview Drive (PF078-022)” to expand the existing deck; based on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2008; amended as follows: Additional condition to define the addition as limited to no closer to the ? property line than 9.75’; and Additional condition that the variance is restricted to a deck, as ? opposed to an enclosed addition or gazebo, either of which would require the applicant to seek amendment to the variance Commissioner Doherty spoke in support of the amended motion, noting that the project had been presented to the adjacent neighbors as a deck, not an enclosed structure. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. b. Planning File 08-038: Request by Michael Fishback, 2895 Hamline Avenue, for a VARIANCE to City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts) to allow a driveway encroachment into the required side yard setback. Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 08-038. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request of Mr. Fishback for a “zero” setback for a proposed driveway located in the same location as the applicant’s personal and family member’s cars have been illegally parking on the grass; with the intent to pave the surface with concrete pavers so that the paving may be more easily removed when additional parking capacity is no longer needed. Staff recommended DENIAL of the requested variance; supporting the allowance of a three foot (3’) encroachment into the required driveway setback through alternatives under City Code (i.e., administrative deviation process). Staff’s