2006_1009_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

noting that it was only discovered on Monday that a link to the planning report was not working properly; and had since been corrected. Mr. Radovich requested that the Variance Board postpone the case to allow the public adequate time for review and comment regarding the requested variance. Mr. Radovicf� noted his concerns with site lines and traffic safety at the intersection; need for landscaping restrictions on the property to allow adequate site lines; consideration of granting variances to a speculative builder; desire for a specific proposal by a builder; and opined that that the property owners had created the circumstances and hardships on their own by subdividing the original lot. Mr. Radovich addressed the group home on the original homestead, additional traffic and cars parked in the driveway and the cluttering of the neighborhood, creating declining property values. Additional discussion included review of proposed designs by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and whether the public could participate in that process, with staff advising that, while not normally noticed, if the Variance Board applied that as a condition to the request, staff would comply. �9r. Radovich concluded his comments by opining that Roseville needed to show caution, as a first-ring suburb, in future development, property value considerations, and end results sought. Tim Garvin,1812 Dale Court Mr. Garvin reiterated the comments of Mr. Radovich; opining that tonight's request was a direct result of a decision made by the property owner last year in subdividing the property, creating the unique lot requiring a variance. Mr. Garvin further opined that the need for a variance was only the beginning, and the neighborhood would be watching closely for any improvements on the lot (i.e., landscaping, fences, etc.) and potential issues down the road if this variance was granted. Chair Bakemar� closed the Public Hearing Commissioner poherty was not supportive of the application; noting previous discussions and his original skepticism at the time the Minor Subdivision was granted, and the Commission's comments at that time related to development of the lot. Commissioner poherty addressed the problems with a reduced-length driveway and cars parked on the driveway creating safety issues and impediments to drivers' views of children playing in the area; and other visibility issues it would create. Commissioner poherty noted that he may be supportive of a smaller variance specific to a garage, but ten or fifteen feet {�0-15') was too close for the entire structure and out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Boerigter opined that this was a difficult decision, but specifically recalled the meetings when the Minor Subdivision was reluctantly granted by the Planning Commission, and comments that the applicant shouldn't expect to receive any variances to get the triangular lot to work. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that a home could be made to work on the lot, but it would not support a traditionally-designed home and would require creativity. Commissioner Boerigter concurred with comments of the neighbors that the plight of this landowner was due to the lot split, and had the existing home been moved to make this lot larger, it would be buildable. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the owner had elected not to move the existing structure, thus creating a lot they couldn't sell due to prospective builderslbuyers not being abEe 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 reauest.