2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SEPTEMBER6,2006 DZt�FT MINUTES VARIANCE BOARD �ommissioner poherty was not supportive of the application; noting previous discussions �nd his origirzal slcepticism at the time the Minor Subdivision was granted, and the �;om�riission's comments at that time related to development of the lot. Commissioner poherty addressed the pres�te�r�s with a reduced-length c%z�eway and cars parlced on the �riveway creating safety issues and impediments to drivers' views of children playing in the ,�rea; and other visibilityissues it would create. Commissioner poherty noted that he may be suppo�-tiv� of a smaller variance specific to a garage, hut ten or fifteen feet ('��-��'} was too close for the entire structure and out of characterwith thc neighborhood. "Cointnissioner Boerigter opined that tlus was a difficult decision, but specificallyrecalled tkz�� meetings when the Minor Subdivision was reluctantly granted by the Planning Commission, arld comments that the applicant shouldn't expect to receive any variances to get the triangular lot to worlc. Commissioner Boerigter fiirtlier opined that a home could be made to ryvorlc on the lot, but it would not support a traditionally-designedhome and would require creativify. Commissioner Boerigter concurred with comments of the neighbors that the �li�ht of this landowner was due to the lot split, and had the existing home been moved to malce this lot larger, it would be buildable. Coa�axaassia�x�z-Boerigter noted that the owner had elected not to move the existing st�cture, thus creating a lot they couldn't sell due to _ prospective �uilcters/buyers not being able to site a home. Commissioner Boerigter opined-. that a fifteen foot (15') variance was too much, and without a specific design or plan to � consider further, justification of a variance would not be applicable; thus he could not support the request. Chair �.3a�e�nan, while posaibly consideringa ten foot (10� variance request; she could not support this request. MOTION � Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member poherty, to DENY a Variance to "�104� of the Roseville City Code for Charles'!�"re�ecz�i, 1$22 Dale Court (PF 378��, to allow a future horne%attached garage encroachment into the required front yard setback for the vacantparcel at Dale Court and Dale Street. I Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion caxtied%�equest DENIED. Chair Bakexa�zan advised the applicant of the appeal process timeframe.