050207_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Lloyd noted that the applicant was only seeking a five foot (5’) variance from the required five foot (5’) parking area setback along the western property line; but that Community Development staff recommends that the Variance Board consider additional variances, as detailed in Section 6 of the staff report, to resolve other existing nonconforming conditions on the property. Staff noted that, in addition to landscaping to stabilize the soils on top of the proposed retaining wall, a four foot (4’) fence would be required to prevent accidental alls; with staff’s review of landscape plans, as submitted, was still pending final review. Staff further noted that the staff report, Section 8.2, should list May 16,6 2007 as the date for an appeal to be submitted, rather than as stated in the staff report. Staff-recommended APPROVAL of the request for a five foot (5’) VARIANCE to City Code, Section 1005.01 (Business Lot Requirements) for the commercial property located at 1233 Larpenteur Avenue, based on comments and findings in Section 5, and the conditions outlined in Section 6 of the staff report dated May 2, 2007. Acting Chair Boerigter sought clarification from staff regarding the outstanding storm water issues. City Engineer Debra Bloom advised that, upon further staff review of the City’s comprehensive storm water management plan, and City Attorney research and legal counsel, this variance request was not related to the existing structure in meeting the two foot (2’) Freeboard Requirements and Policies. Ms. Bloom reviewed historical data of the site regarding significant rainfall events, and probabilities for occurrence; and noted that the City Attorney was drafting indemnification language. Ms. Bloom addressed additional conditions of approval, considering the construction was considered an “addition,” rather than a “new structure.” Acting Chair Boerigter questioned whether staff had traffic concerns at the site. Ms. Bloom responded in the negative, noting that Larpenteur was an arterial road, and the additional square footage proposed wouldn’t significantly impact traffic in the area. Commissioner Wozniak sought clarification on the drive lane on the north, behind the building, and whether it traversed the entire property. Staff responded that it did so currently, and the future proposal was for parking stalls. Commissioner Wozniak questioned plans for removal of pavement adjacent to the north of the building; topography of the site; and current tree coverage. Staff responded that the existing conditions were pervious surfaces; and the applicant would have several options, including installation of an underground storage chamber, to retain water with the proposed change in impervious surface; with Ms. Bloom noting that staff would adhere to best management practices and Code, and work with the applicant on the best possible solution. Commissioner Doherty questioned Section 5.9 of the staff report related to the proposed construction as an “addition.”