100610_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 1. Call to Order 1 Vice Chair Gisselquist called to order the Variance Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. and reviewed 2 the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 2. Roll Call & Introductions 4 City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Vice Chair John Gisselquist and Commissioner Andre Best. 6 Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 7 3. Review of Minutes 8 MOTION 9 Member Best moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist, to approve meeting minutes of 10 June 2, 2010 as presented. 11 Ayes: 2 12 Nays: 0 13 Motion carried. 14 4. Public Hearings: 15 a. PLANNING FILE 10-025 16 Request by Bill Rodrique for approval of VARIANCES to Chapter 1004 17 (Residential Districts) of the City Code to allow principal structure 18 encroachments into the required front and side yard setback 19 Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 10-025 at 5:34 20 p.m. 21 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis of the request by Bill 22 Rodrique for approval of VARIANCES to Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) of the 23 City Code to allow principal structure encroachments into the required front and side 24 yard setback. Mr. Lloyd advised that the variance request was prompted by the 25 applicant’s desire to expand the attached garage into the required front-and side-yard 26 setbacks as a means to correct structural and drainage problems with the existing 27 garage as well as problems related to a clothes dryer that is poorly located and 28 consequently, improperly vented. 29 Mr. Lloyd reviewed recent case law from the Minnesota Supreme Court 30 (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka), and subsequent advise from the City Attorney 31 that Roseville is required to use a strict interpretation of statutory langue in authorizing 32 variance, as detailed in Section 5 of the Request for Variance Board Action dated 33 October 6, 2010, specifically Section 5.4. 34 Based on that advice, staff recommends DENIAL as the property could be put to a 35 reasonable use under conditions allowed by the official controls, based on the City’s 36 inability based on recent case law for granting the requested VARIANCE; as detailed 37 in the staff report dated October 6, 2010. 38 Discussion included rationale for the request coming forward given this recent ruling; 39 the applicant’s desire to correct this issue on his property through a variance; rationale 40 for the conservative interpretation by the City Attorney and staff of State Statute and 41 the Supreme Court ruling; and other options available to the property owner, at a 42 higher cost, than being requested and could be reviewed and approved at as an 43 administrative variance requiring no additional public hearing before the Commission. 44