090308_VB_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

owners. Chair Boerigter noted the rationale of Mr. Fishback in staying in the community; parking needs and limitations; and tree preservation. Chair Boerigter opined that the positives in granting the variance exceeded the negatives; and allowing the variance to preserve the trees seemed to be a fair trade-off for allowing the driveway closer to the property line. Commissioner Best concurred with Chair Boerigter on the difficulty of the decision; recognizing the driveway proximity to the property line; while considering the property owner’s longevity on this parcel; lack of concern of adjacent neighbors; and advised that he was inclined to support the Variance request. Chair Boerigter declared the motion died for lack of a second. City Planner Paschke spoke to staff’s concern and rationale for a separation of properties; and recommended that, if the Variance Board was inclined to support the Variance request, that there be some separation between the driveway and property line to address future mitigation and impacts should the property ownership change on any of the properties. Mr. Paschke noted that staff would be required to facilitate drainage issues and seek compliance of properties owners, and separation of the properties was the best way to accomplish this. Commissioner Doherty noted that this had been his rationale in proposing DENIAL; to allow for mitigation on the subject property, and not creating mitigation issues for the neighboring property owners. Chair Boerigter suggested that the pitch of the driveway could be stipulated to ensure drainage would slope toward the subject property. Mr. Paschke requested that any variance approval make such slope part of the conditions for approval. Commissioner Best suggested a further condition that pervious materials be required for the driveway padding. Mr. Paschke advised that such pervious pavers were available on the market to accommodate sheet flow through design and installation. Mr. Lloyd indicated that, to approve a variance, the Variance Board would have to make findings that identified the specific hardship, explained how the hardship was not caused by the applicant, and described how approval of a variance would not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare. MOTION Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Best to APPROVE Variance Board Resolution No. 82 entitled, “A Resolution APPROVING a Four Foot (4’) VARIANCE to Roseville City Code, Section 1004 (Residence Districts), creating a one foot (1’) gap or separation between property lines, to create a slope through design and/or installation of pervious pavers to control sheet flow to drain onto the applicant’s existing property, rather than neighboring for Michael Fishback, 2895 Hamline Avenue PF08-038);” based properties, on the comments and findings of Section 5 and the recommendation of Section 6 of the project report dated September 3, 2008; with Findings of Hardship for approval based on: Hardship – through granting this variance, no adverse impact to the ? public health, safety and general welfare of the public; and Plight of landowner is due to circumstances not created by the ? landowner. Ayes: 2 Nays: 1 (Doherty) Motion carried. 5. Adjournment Chair Boerigter adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:22 p.m.