2014_07_09_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 9, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Paschke advised that, when the City looks at drainage issues, it did so on an area versus 145 individual lot basis; and clarified that the maximum impervious coverage for a lot is 30%, and 146 drainage addressed through various mitigation efforts. Mr. Paschke noted that water flowed 147 downhill to the lowest spot; and suggested it may be possible that the ponding area may have 148 silted over during the years preventing its infiltration as it used to, based on those hydrology 149 changes. Mr. Paschke also noted that larger rain events, in addition to the previous winter 150 conditions, may have had further impacts. From staff’s point of view, Mr. Paschke advised that if 151 the ponding got worse or became problematic other than standing water in the rear lot areas, the 152 City’s Engineering Department would need to address it. While unaware of this particular 153 situation, Mr. Paschke noted newer developments that were required to retain utility or drainage 154 easements in place on the rear and side yards to address infiltration issues. However, Mr. 155 Paschke advised that typically, property owners were not limited beyond the maximum 30% 156 impervious surface requirement unless there were unique issues with the City’s infrastructure. 157 Mr. Lloyd provided a graphic of the proposed garage at 896 square feet superimposed over the 158 existing garage structure; noting that it was not that much larger in size, simply better configured 159 and of new construction. In addressing the impervious surface, using the images provided by 160 Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd noted that a significant part of the driveway actually sloped toward 161 the street, opining that pavement in that area wouldn’t contribute to the back yard drainage. 162 Chair Boguszewski stated that he didn’t want to delay action on this case, but noted the larger 163 question addressed by Member Cunningham and the need to reconcile City Code Item 1004.02 164 with the City’s desire to reduce impervious surfaces in general to help with ground saturation. 165 Chair Boguszewski questioned if it wasn’t worth looking at City C ode to determine if a long 166 driveway on a deep property such as this should receive some allowance or some exception for 167 pavement within a certain location of the street or not visible from the street. Chair Boguszewski 168 suggested seeking an opinion at the staff level from the Engineering Department to determine if 169 there were any drainage impacts from a broader perspective. Chair Boguszewski opined hat, on 170 a normal short driveway on a normal property, there wouldn’t be an issue; however, some larger 171 and deeper lots in Roseville, may need further consideration. 172 Applicant 173 Using the Boguszewski visuals, Mr. Ahmann noted that part of the driveway in front on his 174 property sloped toward Mr. Anderson’s house; and Mr. Anderson already experienced a problem 175 with water in his basement and had an outlet for a sump pump. Mr. Ahmann questioned if the 176 driveway was paved, would it contribute to Mr. Anderson’s drainage issues. 177 Chair Boguszewski questioned if the request was approved and amended to exclude the reduced 178 size condition, could the Variance Board also request that the City Engineer look at this specific 179 property and whether or not it was wise to pave the driveway and enforce that portion of City 180 Code. 181 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively; opining that he wasn’t sure if it was appropriate to make it a 182 condition of approval; but agreed that staff could look into it from that perspective. Short of a 183 variance or code change, Mr. Paschke opined that there wasn’t much that could be done other 184 than typical ways to mitigate impacts on private residential properties with grading and slopes and 185 other mechanisms to mitigate water from moving directly toward a home. Mr. Paschke clarified 186 that those things happened during the permitting process, but in this case, could be addressed by 187 staff in advance. 188 Chair Boguszewski suggested that the contractor be required to design the driveway surface that 189 wouldn’t do any additional damage. 190 Mr. Paschke advised that the property owners speaking tonight brought up good points for further 191 staff research in advance of the construction. 192 Chair Boguszewski closed the Public Hearing at approximately 6:15 p.m. 193 MOTION 194 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to adopt Variance Board 195 Resolution No. 105 entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Variance to Roseville City Code, 196