2014_12_03_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 3, 2014 Page 2 nuanced narrative submission and reasons why a variance process made the most sensible 45 approach. 46 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that staff anticipated revision of the 47 current text and amendment in 2015, but noted that it was not being done by the Planning staff 48 alone but would need to factor in requirements of the City’s Public Works/Engineering 49 Department, and upon completion advised that it would include requirements or guidelines for 50 maintenance of such storm water mitigation efforts. 51 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that those 2015 text revisions would 52 not apply to this property. Without discussing it further with the City Attorney, Mr. Paschke 53 advised Chair Boguszewski that granting this variance would not make it subject to those 54 requirements, and did not consider this variance in any way subject to those requirements or 55 guidelines not yet drafted and/or adopted. 56 At the request of Member Cunningham to make this approval subject to the applicant adhering to 57 a future maintenance plan of the City, Mr. Paschke recognized the intent of the Board to have 58 checks and balances in place, but was not sure of language that would support that intent from a 59 legal standpoint. 60 Member Cunningham advised that she didn’t want to deny the variance request, but did have 61 concerns similar to those expressed by Chair Boguszewski regarding future maintenance and 62 monitoring. 63 Applicant Representative Steve Zawadski of Zawadski Homes 64 On behalf of his client, Mr. Zawadski advised that he had also built the home next door to this 65 parcel; and the attempt was to construct a home of an appropriate size for the lake area. In 66 designing the home, Mr. Zawadski noted that the issue became how to provide a plowable hard 67 surface driveway for easier maintenance. Mr. Zawadski advised that he had installed several 68 similar to this material in Shoreview, and they appeared to be working and draining well; and 69 further advised that he would be hiring civil engineers for their final analysis for installation. Mr. 70 Zawadski opined that the applicant, his client, was open to language that would work and 71 assuage the concerns of the Board. Mr. Zawadski further opined that if the City had such 72 language already in place, this material and design would probably be accepted. Mr. Zawadski 73 suggested finding out practices in other communities; and advised that he and his client were 74 open to something logical and operational for all parties. 75 Mr. Paschke suggested that the Board include an additional condition, such as: “The applicant 76 will enroll in the certification and maintenance process when established by the City of Roseville.” 77 Mr. Zawadski concurred, opining that the language seemed logical to him and his client. 78 Chair Boguszewski closed Public Hearing at 5:46 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 79 MOTION 80 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to adopt Variance Board 81 Resolution No. 110 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Variance to 82 Roseville City Code, Section 1004.08 (Improvement Area) to allow the Proposed Excess 83 Paved Surfaces and Building Footprints at 465 S Owasso Boulevard (PF14-030);” and 84 based on the comments and findings outlined in the staff report dated December 3, 2014, 85 as conditioned; as amended with additional condition as follows: 86 “The applicant will enroll in the certification and maintenance process when established 87 by the City of Roseville.” 88 Ayes: 3 89 Nays: 0 90 Motion carried. 91 5. Adjournment 92 Chair Boguszewski adjourned the meeting at approximately 5:48 p.m. 93