2014_05_07_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 – 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 1 Chair Boguszewski called to order the Variance Board meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. 2 and reviewed the role and purpose of the Variance Board. 3 2. Roll Call & Introductions 4 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Chair Michael Boguszewski and Commissioner Robert Murphy 6 Members Excused: Member Shannon Cunningham 7 Staff present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd; and 8 Planning Intern Cadence Peterson 9 3. Review of Minutes 10 MOTION 11 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to approve meeting 12 minutes of April 10, 2014 as presented. 13 Ayes: 2 14 Nays: 0 15 Motion carried. 16 4. Public Hearing 17 PLANNING FILE 14-010 18 Request by AutoZone, Inc. for a VARIANCE to Section 1017.17.A, Low Floor Elevation, 19 of the Roseville Zoning Code to allow the redevelopment of the property at 1255 20 Larpenteur Avenue with a structure that has the lowest floor elevation less than the 21 required 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation 22 Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 13-006 at 5:34 p.m. 23 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated May 24 7, 2014; allowing construction of a building with a floor level that is lower, with respect to the 25 100-year flood elevation of the adjacent storm pond. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the purpose of the 26 low floor elevation for all structures within a storm water district; and request to allow the site 27 to be developed at the same elevation as today, approximately nine feet above the existing 28 grade and 11 feet above the Larpenteur Avenue curb. 29 Mr. Lloyd reviewed staff’s analysis and specific findings as a prerequisite for approving the 30 variance request; and advised that staff recommended approval of the request for 31 redevelopment of the existing property. 32 As detailed in Section 6.0 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd reported on public comment received 33 by staff to-date. 34 Discussion included the availability of pumping mechanisms and facilities to address water 35 runoff; redevelopment plans similar to existing use and impervious surfaces creating no major 36 differences as a result; and storm water management requirements to be met by the 37 redevelopment under current City Code and watershed district regulations. 38 Further discussion included clarification that this is a retail parts establishment versus a 39 service or repair use, with no long-term vehicle storage related to the business, requiring no 40 extension of a waiver for vehicle owners to sign a waiver related to potential water or flooding 41