2012_0723_as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

d.The applicant could apply for approval of a . Setback variances have been VARIANCE 52 approved to allow garages to be as close as 1 foot from the property line. 53 5.3In reviewing the application, comments from Roseville’s Development Review 54 Committee (DRC) were primarily from Public Works Department staff; their main 55 comments were as follows: 56 a.The general area surrounding the subject property has had long-standing storm water 57 problems—but these problems have not been caused by Brown-Wilbert’s snow 58 storage. Improvements to the storm sewer infrastructure in that area are presently in 59 process; to this end, easements (as shown in Attachment C) should be dedicated 60 allowing the City to cross over private property to be able to access the easement for 61 maintenance and construction. 62 b.Snow storage should not be allowed within the easements. 63 c.If a fence is installed along the property boundaries, a gate will be necessary to 64 provide access to the easements. 65 d.Snow storage should not interfere with existing drainage patterns, and the sand and 66 other material that remains in the area after the snow pile melts should be removed 67 each spring so that it will not block the natural drainage. 68 The first three of these comments can be made conditions of approval of the proposed 69 parcel recombination and further regulated and enforced by the easements, but the fourth 70 comment must remain more of a suggestion to Brown-Wilbert because land use is not a 71 consideration of subdivision approvals and because snow storage isn’t a use that’s 72 regulated,per se, by the City Code. While the City Code doesn’t regulate snow storage 73 (except to state that required stalls in parking lots cannot be rendered unusable by piles of 74 snow), the Code does prohibit activities which create storm water problems. Therefore, if 75 Brown-Wilbert isn’t careful about how they conduct the snow storage, it could lead to 76 enforcement actions down the road. 77 5.4Aside from ensuring that the snow storage continues to be benign with respect to 78 drainage and improvements to the storm sewer system, the existing zoning of Brown- 79 Wilbert’s various parcels is the only complicated aspect of the RECOMBINATION MINOR 80 proposal; an illustration of the zoning of Brown-Wilbert’s properties is SUBDIVISION 81 included with this report as Attachment D. The main parcel at 2280 Hamline Avenue is 82 zoned O/BP and 2253 Dellwood Street has LDR-1 zoning, as noted above; the house at 83 2270 Hamline Avenue, however, is zoned Institutional (INST) District, consistent with 84 the neighboring library to the south. Because zoning designations apply to specific land 85 area rather than to entire parcels, the proposed realignment of the parcel boundaries 86 would cause the reconfigured main parcel to have two zoning designations: O/BP and, in 87 the southeastern corner, LDR-1. This may not be an ideal situation, but such dual zoning 88 is found elsewhere in Roseville (e.g., 165 South Owasso Boulevard and 2030 County 89 Road D) and there is nothing in State Statute or City Code that prohibits such a thing or 90 that allows Roseville to require the parcels to be rezoned with a single classification. 91 5.5Despite its complexity, the existing patchwork of zoning designations within and across 92 the applicant’s parcels can also be seen as something of a safeguard for surrounding 93 PF12-009_RCA_072312 Page 3 of 4