030707_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 2 Discussion included parking on Woodhill, with City Engineer Debra Bloom advising that, with a thirty-two foot (32’) wide roadway, parking was allowed. Ms. Bloom advised that this was a unique circumstance with an existing parking lot and a hardship not created by the applicant, who was seeking additional access to their parking lot, which was supported by staff. Ms. Bloom noted that there would be loss of one (1) parking space with the relocated access; however, no new signage was indicated unless written complaints were received from a property owner due to visibility concerns; and that if written comments were received, the City’s Public Safety Committee would determine if City Council action were warranted to provide signage to restrict parking. Ms. Bloom further noted that State Statute provided for “no parking” within thirty feet (30’) of an intersection (one car length). Jim Lundberg, of Midwest Land Surveyors and The applicant’s representative, Engineers , consulting engineer on the project, was present to respond to questions of the Commission. Discussion included defining which areas of the parking lot were proposed for repair (3 areas minimum) depending on a review of the subgrade conditions, followed by repair and repaving as necessary, followed by seal-coating. Mr. Lundgren advised that the applicant intended to widen the existing entrance onto Grandview from eighteen feet (18’) to twenty-four feet (24’); and within 3-4 years anticipated the reconstruction of the entire parking lot with concrete curb and gutter. Further discussion included adequacy of parking spaces, based on code requirements and a review by the City’s Design Review Committee (DRC) of remaining parking in light of those lost to the widening and relocating of driveways; and a need for additional requirements for impervious surface, landscaping, and storm water management, which would be triggered under the “25% improvement” clause of the City Code when the applicant sought permits for the major reconstruction project in 3-4 years. Staff noted that this improvement was considered maintenance rather than reconstruction or redevelopment. Mr. Lundgren noted that existing damaged bituminous curbing would be replaced as required in critical areas during this maintenance project; however, that concrete curb and gutter was anticipated with the major reconstruction project in 3-4 years. Acting Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing. MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to adopt Variance Board Resolution No. 54 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING a Variance to §1018.05 (Design and Maintenance of Parking and Loading Areas) of the Roseville City Code for Cave & Associates for the Property Located at 2353 Rice Street;” for a requested 7.5-foot intersection setback VARIANCE to allow for the construction of a new driveway within the required setback on Woodbridge Street, based on the request, based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of the project report dated March 7, 2007; Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Acting Chair Boerigter advised the applicant of the appeal process timeframe. 5. Adjournment Acting Chair Boerigter adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.