2016-09-14_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Page 5 would allow those needs. However, Member Daire stated he was conflicted as he 203 was sympathetic to the applicant’s desire for a larger building, while 204 understanding staff’s recognition of the façade and garage doors facing onto W 205 Owasso Blvd. Therefore, Member Daire advised that he would abstain as he was 206 unable to come up with findings that would stand in opposition to those outlined 207 by staff, and therefore would be unable to alter the conclusions provided by staff. 208 Ayes: 2 209 Nays: 1 (Daire) 210 Motion carried. 211 Chair Murphy reviewed the appeal process and deadline. 212 b. PLANNING FILE 16-025 213 Request by Trisha Stefanski for approval of a VARIANCE to Roseville City 214 Code, Section 1017.16 (Shoreland Setbacks), to allow a proposed porch roof 215 to encroach into the required setback from a city-designated shoreline at 216 1204 Brooks Avenue 217 Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 16-025 at 6:32 p.m. 218 Senior Planner Lloyd reviewed the requested variance for this property, as 219 detailed in the staff report dated September 14, 2016. Mr. Lloyd referenced the 220 written narrative provided by the applicant (Attachment C). 221 Mr. Lloyd stated that staff found findings merited Variance Board consideration 222 and approval of the requested variance to allow the proposed porch roof to 223 encroach in the required DNR designated shoreline, and to address water 224 damage the home was currently experiencing. Mr. Lloyd addressed shoreline 225 setback requirements, current and proposed impervious coverage limits and 226 improvements; and mitigation of extra stormwater on site as a condition of 227 approval. 228 At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd reviewed net impervious surface 229 calculations with the addition of the shed roof and patio, removal of existing patio 230 space at the back, and future additional parking pad and driveway realignment in 231 front. However, Mr. Lloyd clarified that just the porch improvement itself didn’t 232 exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage. 233 Member Gitzen stated he was in favor of the proposal, but wanted to clarify the 234 process required for the referenced residential storm water permit. 235 Mr. Lloyd noted if this were not lakeshore property and only a conventional 236 standard city parcel, the residential stormwater permit would allow for the 237 additional impervious coverage. However, since there are additional restrictions in 238 the shoreland management portion of code and interest of the Department of 239 Natural Resources (DNR), Mr. Lloyd advised that the process needed to be 240 followed, as per staff’s recommendation in their draft motion (line 76) in the staff 241 report. While the Public Works Department was working on other similar tools that 242 may prove useful in different situations, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s opinion was 243 that the residential stormwater permit application process would work best for this 244 applicant. 245 At the request of Chair Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had received no 246 additional public comment since dissemination of the meeting materials. 247 At the request of Member Gitzen, Mr. Lloyd advised that the DNR had not 248 provided any feedback, as Willow Lake was not a state-designated lake body. 249 Applicant Trisha Stefanski, 1204 Brooks Avenue 250 Ms. Stefanski provided photographic and narrative evidence of the water problem 251 in their home, and previous greenhouse on the parcel and current roof designed 252 to cover it, but not the steps into the lower level of the home. Ms. Stefanski noted 253