pf07-028 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 � PLANNING FILE 07-022 Request by Richard Browne, 397 South Owasso Boulevard, for a VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, §1016.26B1 (Storm Water Management — Specific SWndards — Impervious Surface Coverage) to allow more impervious surface coverage than the Code allows on a lakefront residential lot. _ Acting Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-022. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request to allow reconstruction of a residential home with attached garage and driveway, with the proposed redevelopment exceeding the allowable impervious surface coverage on the parcel by 611 square feet, noting heightened requirements for shoreland lots, thus necessitating the variance application. Mr. Paschke noted transitions along shoreland properties from older to new homes to create a more efficient use of space; recognizing thi; variance application as meeting the criteria for a redevelopment project, and staff'� work with the applicant and their contrector to refine their proposal to meet City Code. Mr. Paschke further noted that one of the conditions of approval for granting'the variance would be mitigation, by some option, of the additional impervious surface. Staff-recommended APPROVAL of the �quest, based on comments and findings in Section 5, and the conditions outlined,%in Section 6 of the staff report dated May 2, 2007. ;' Discussion included identifying and clarifying apparent and additional impervious surfaces on the aerial photogr�ph (previous above-ground pool); dimensions used in calculating properties with IaFte frontage; fronUrear elevations showing a proposed patio and proposed materia{s, with staff clarifying that this was included on the plans, but was not intended to be installed by the applicant; and square footage calculations forthe raised sunroom. Commissioners expy� ssed concern that in the future, permits may be issued for additional imperviqtis surfaces (i.e., patio) without Variance Board approval; and questioned how sfaff could monitor such items if not part of a written agreement. Mr. Paschke �oted that, if the applicant planned a patio in the future, they would need to seek an additional variance from City Code to do so; and further noted that staff did not includ� a patio in this request, nor were they administrativety supportive of a patio without aiiditional mitigation. AddiNonal discussion included storm water control methodology and calculations; with M.' Bloom advising that Lake Owasso was a controlled lake, not gravity-fed, and was ell regulated. Staff further addressed rypes of mitigation methods; and noted staffs intent to create a database to allow performance of periodic inspections to ensure compliance of drainage options. Ms. Bloom opined that current trends were creating more environmentally sound landscaping practices; and supported her previous experience with this contractor in meeting best management practices. The applicant, Richard Browne, 48 Forest Treil, Mahtomedi, MN Mr. Browne advised, related to the patio, that the pictures were provided by the architect, but that he had not been instructed to include a patio, nor was it the applicant's intent to install a patio.