050207_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Paschke noted transitions along shoreland properties from older to new homes to create a more efficient use of space; recognizing this variance application as meeting the criteria for a redevelopment project, and staff’s work with the applicant and their contractor to refine their proposal to meet City Code. Mr. Paschke further noted that one of the conditions of approval for granting the variance would be mitigation, by some option, of the additional impervious surface. Staff-recommended APPROVAL of the request, based on comments and findings in Section 5, and the conditions outlined in Section 6 of the staff report dated May 2, 2007. Discussion included identifying and clarifying apparent and additional impervious surfaces on the aerial photograph (previous above-ground pool); dimensions used in calculating properties with lake frontage; front/rear elevations showing a proposed patio and proposed materials, with staff clarifying that this was included on the plans, but was not intended to be installed by the applicant; and square footage calculations for the raised sunroom. Commissioners expressed concern that in the future, permits may be issued for additional impervious surfaces (i.e., patio) without Variance Board approval; and questioned how staff could monitor such items if not part of a written agreement. Mr. Paschke noted that, if the applicant planned a patio in the future, they would need to seek an additional variance from City Code to do so; and further noted that staff did not include a patio in this request, nor were they administratively supportive of a patio without additional mitigation. Additional discussion included storm water control methodology and calculations; with Ms. Bloom advising that Lake Owasso was a controlled lake, not gravity-fed, and was well regulated. Staff further addressed types of mitigation methods; and noted staff’s intent to create a database to allow performance of periodic inspections to ensure compliance of drainage options. Ms. Bloom opined that current trends were creating more environmentally sound landscaping practices; and supported her previous experience with this contractor in meeting best management practices. The applicant, Richard Browne, 48 Forest Trail, Mahtomedi, MN Mr. Browne advised, related to the patio, that the pictures were provided by the architect, but that he had not been instructed to include a patio, nor was it the applicant’s intent to install a patio. Commissioners emphasized that, if a patio were installed in the future, or any additional impervious surface ratio increases, an additional variance application would be necessary. Mr. Browne noted his understanding of the requirement; and advised that he and the contractors were just beginning discussions on rain gardens and other mitigation options, and expressed his interest in pursuing the best option as suggested by staff and the landscaping contractor. Commissioner Wozniak noted that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had grants available for some projects; and staff volunteered to coordinate with the applicant and other agencies as applicable. Public Comment No one appeared for or against.