pf07-003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Bryan Lloyd � To: jronke@msn.com Subject: variance request Hi again, i�Ir. Ronkc. r1 LJ Page 1 of l I just want to check in ��ith you about your variance request before I finish the staff report. I talked to 'I'homas Paschke about our conversation last �veek (I'm not sure if he had the chance to call you back); while I don't mean to speak for Thomas, I was left �vith the following understanding about your initial convexsation ��ith him: I3y informing you that a rain-water garden would be required to offset any impervious coverage beyond what the Code allows, he didn't intend to give you the impression that simply providing adequate on-site storm-water drainage would allo�v any amount of impervious surface area. I believe his goal was simply to infortn you that a variance for excess impervious coverage would only be approved with the condition that measures be taken to mitigate the marginal storm-�vater runoff. �1nd while I didn't get a clear impression of his initial comments to you with respect to the proposed size of the garage, breezeway, and sunroom, he told me that he tried to be clear about the fact that his opinion on the matter (whatever that opinion was) was only one among the Department staf£ When the entire Department staff reviewed your proposal, I believe we concluded unanimously that the scale of the buildings you've proposed are not approprtiate far the size of ��our lot. So, to recap my previous email, we (as Department staf� cannot support your variance request based on ��our present proposal. We are generally� supportive of your desire to make improvements to your property, but, even though such improvements might require a variance, the scale of those improvements must be in keeping with the size of the lot itself. You certainly may maintain your applicarion and proposal as it is without making an� changes, but the staff report would include stafis recommendation to the Variance Board that the variance request be denied. However, if you do want to make some revisions to your proposal so Department staff can support the variance request, it's conceivable that such changes could be made in time for the January meeting of the Variance Board (although tune is getting tight); otherwise you could take more time considering ways to scale back your proposal and �ve could bring the revised variance request to the FebYUary 7th �'ariance Boar�i meeting. I need to deli� er the staff report to the Variance Board membeis b�- Triday-, December 29. As always, please don't hesitate to call me if �-ou ha� e adciitional questions or concerns about this matter. Bryan Lloyd Associate City Planner City of Roseville 651-792-7073 bryan.11oyd,�ci.roseville.mn.us 12/26/2006