2014_06_04_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 2 where if the actual addition was proposed in this case – if worded accordingly, there 45 would have been no need for a variance for appropriate regulations. 46 The applicant was present, but had no comment beyond the staff report and 47 presentation. 48 Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 5:45 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 49 MOTION 50 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to adopt Variance 51 Board Resolution No. 103 entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Variance to 52 Roseville City Code, Section 1004.08B (Residential Setbacks) at 1836 Fernwood 53 Avenue (PF14-013)”; based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 54 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 4, 2013; 55 amended as follows: 56 Correct typographical correction to “WHEREAS…” d, from “…proposed retail  57 redevelopment makes reasonable use…” to “proposed home addition makes 58 reasonable use…” 59 Ayes: 3 60 Nays: 0 61 Motion carried. 62 b. PLANNING FILE 14-014 63 Request by David Einzig for a VARIANCE to Section 1017.16 (Shoreland Setbacks) 64 of Roseville City Code to allow a driveway to encroach into the required setback 65 from a wetland boundary at 2950 W Owasso Boulevard 66 Chair Boguszewski opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 13-013 at 6:47 p.m. 67 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 68 June 4, 2014, to allow construction of a residential driveway that would encroach 69 approximately 12’ into the required 30’ setback from a wetland boundary; as detailed in 70 the staff report dated June 4, 2014. Mr. Lloyd noted that the subject property was platted 71 in 1921, and aerial photography showed the presence of the wetland in 1940, the earliest 72 year of aerial imagery by Ramsey County’s GIS, and further noted that the required 73 driveway setback from a wetland was part of Ordinance 1156 adopted in 1994. 74 Mr. Lloyd noted that the former home had previously been demolished as part of 75 redevelopment plans in the area and intended reinvestment in residential property, 76 consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and goal to protect surface waters. Mr. 77 Lloyd advised that by constructing the driveway to direct rainwater from the water, it 78 would prevent further degradation; and noted that the proposed site plan was included in 79 the staff report (Attachment C). Mr. Lloyd referenced a neighboring home (2940 W 80 Owasso Blvd.) with a similarly located driveway. As part of their review, Mr. Lloyd noted 81 that the DRC had supported approval as conditioned and related to the driveway slope 82 and location, detailed in Section 7.0 of the staff report. 83 Mr. Lloyd advised that, after staff’s analysis, they recommended approval of the 84 requested variance, as outlined in Section 5 of the staff report. 85 Discussion 86 Member Cunningham questioned the location of this and other driveways in relationship 87 to the wetland and the potential for any further compromise to the wetland. 88 Mr. Lloyd responded in the negative based on the proposed location of the driveway 89 reverting to its placement when reconstructed in 2007/2008 at which time it was 90 constructed to ensure there would be no drainage into the wetland; and further 91 guaranteed with the recommended conditioned approval. 92 Member Cunningham questioned if the additional changes made to the grading 93 completely mitigated any potential impact to the wetland in the future. 94