2011_11_02_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 02, 2011 Page 2 Further discussion included the percentage of impervious surface included with this plan; with 48 Member Strohmeier opining that there appeared to be a lot being condensed on this parcel; and 49 staff defining that, in an HDR-2 Zoning District, requirements were that impervious surfaces not 50 exceed 85% for the entire development, with governing authority for the site’s storm water 51 management plan reviewed, approved and monitored under requirements of and by the City’s 52 Engineering Department and the Rice Creek Watershed District, and as reviewed by those 53 jurisdictions under previous plan approval. 54 Applicant Representative Mark Nelson, United Properties 55 Mr. Nelson concurred, noting that the development’s storm water management plan was 56 processed through watershed approvals under a global review of the site. From a practical 57 business perspective on the site, and the need for guest parking near the front door, Mr. Nelson 58 advised that this was driving the variance request; and reiterated that the development continued 59 to meet all runoff requirements of the City of Roseville’s Engineering Department and the Rice 60 Creek Watershed District. 61 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Nelson advised that the assisted living building would 62 not be physically connected with the other buildings on the site; with staff reviewing the various 63 phases of the development. 64 At the request of Member Strohmeier questioning how the graphics outlined in Attachment D 65 would negatively impact the development without the additional stalls; Mr. Nelson advised that 66 the total number of stalls and their location not by the front door was the detriment. Mr. Nelson 67 advised that the development was planned with underground garage space for approximately half 68 of the total square footage to accommodate residents and employees; however, vendors and 69 visitors needed to be accommodated on site. Due to the nature of Cleveland Avenue, Mr. Nelson 70 noted that there was little overflow parking available; in addition to a portion of the parcel taken up 71 by the road constructed by the developer for the City and access to the park. Mr. Nelson advised 72 that he didn’t’ see parking on the site a day-to-day problem; however, from an operational 73 perspective he did anticipate the need for those additional stalls for holidays and/or special 74 events at the assisted living facility. 75 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at approximately 5:58 p.m., with no one appearing for 76 or against. 77 Commission Deliberation 78 Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of the variance; while recognizing that the variance request 79 was not consistent with the City’s recently-adopted Comprehensive Plan and attempted move to 80 modern urbanism, and suggested that there may be other alternatives available on the site. 81 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of variance, noting that from an operational flow in the 82 health care industry it was better to have visitor parking by the door. Member Boguszewski noted 83 that there was not an adjacent residential area that would be impacted from additional noise or 84 light. 85 Member Strohmeier reiterated his initial concerns that this was a very large use of a limited site; 86 and noted the usual hardships requiring a variance did not apply in this case, since there were 87 other alternatives available to the developer, and this was basically being requested for 88 convenience. Member Strohmeier expressed his concern in setting such a precedent. 89 City Planner Paschke questioned where Member Strohmeier would put the parking, since it 90 needed to be on-site; and there was no other place to put it without entirely redesigning the site. 91 Mr. Paschke opined that this was the rationale in the state statute being revised to allow this type 92 of variance. Mr. Paschke noted that this development had been in the design stages since 2006 93 or before, and previously approved under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation, with 94 the developer having made a huge investment to-date in that design, initially completed before 95 the City adopted its revised zoning code. Mr. Paschke opined that, to not grant this variance 96 request would create a huge functional challenge for the site; with only ADA-compliant parking in 97 front, but no visitor parking. Mr. Paschke advised that the variance would allow something that 98 the City had changed on the developer during the process through creation of the City’s new 99 ordinance to apply in all cases, but allowing dispensation of that requirement in this case. 100