030508_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Variance Board Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Page 2 Mr. Lloyd noted that the garage would not actually be enlarged, but would be rebuilt to make it more usable, with the slope of the driveway toward the street, making pervious paving not a viable option for reducing increased rainwater runoff from the expanded driveway. Mr. Lloyd advised that Ms. Braunlin may be amenable to reducing the size of the proposed patio, and staff would be supportive of requiring a reduction in the size of the proposed sidewalk/patio on the eastern side of the house, as a deck on the roof of the garage would serve the same recreational purpose while not increasing the impervious coverage. Mr. Lloyd noted that, by limiting the width of that sidewalk to the width of the stairs shown on the site plan, it would appear to eliminate approximately 120 square feet of impervious surface area, bringing the total coverage below 47%. Mr. Lloyd advised that, as a condition of approval, staff recommended that the applicant reduce storm water runoff to levels consistent with 25% impervious coverage that would go well beyond mitigating the proposed additional impervious surface area, while helping to achieve some goals of the City’s storm water management requirements. Staff recommended APPROVAL of the request for a VARIANCE to the impervious coverage limits established in Roseville City Code, §1016 (Shoreland Requirements), to allow the expansion of the attached garage at 358 S McCarrons Boulevard; based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5, and subject to the conditions detailed in Section 6 of the staff report dated March 5, 2008. Discussion included whether the applicant was willing and able to meet the 25% City code- mandated stormwater mitigation requirements; whether the small patio needed to be removed to help achieve that mitigation; staff’s interpretation of the difference between reasonable application and hardship justification; and staff’s flexibility and willingness to help the applicant achieve code compliance through various mitigation options; and confirmation by staff that there was no need for a driveway turnaround on the property since it did not directly access a county road. Applicant, Elizabeth Braunlin Ms. Braunlin expressed concern in being able to achieve the 25% impervious coverage rate, given the physical nature of the property; while supporting efforts to preserve the lake. Ms. Braunlin advised that she was not concerned with removing the patio if necessary; and she confirmed that a mature Pine tree on the site would need to be sacrificed. City Engineer Deb Bloom At the request of the Board, Ms. Bloom reviewed the process followed by staff when a building permit application was received, and how staff would work with the applicant until the Engineering Department signed off on the design, in conjunction with the Ramsey County Conservation District in assisting the applicant with the design and in achieving the mitigation requirements. Ms. Bloom noted that the taxpayer-funded services of the Conservation District were available to property owners as needed to assist with design options for stormwater to reduce volume, based on soil type and calculation formulae; and assurances from staff and the Board to Ms. Braunlin that compliance was possible, and options were available that were less expensive than others. Tim Johnson, Southview Design, Applicant’s Landscape Architect Mr. Johnson advised of the current impervious surface calculation at 41.3%, reduced from the original plans at 45%, in addition to removal of the garage that would reduce it to 39%,and questioned how much lower the rate would have to be. Further discussion included options, such as underground storage and/or rain gardens, and potential expenses. Mr. Johnson noted that an engineer would need to be hired by the applicant, but opined that the City needed to commit to its own investigation to make sure improvements would be valuable to the lake. Mr. Johnson advised that he and the applicant were willing to work with City staff to try to achieve the 25%, but asked if the City would be willing to compromise. Ms. Bloom advised that City Code stated 25%, and anything above that would be noncompliance, and reiterated staff’s and other agencies’ willingness to work with the applicant on strategies for a solution. Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against.