My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf07-033
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2007
>
pf07-033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 9:46:25 AM
Creation date
6/17/2013 3:22:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
07-033
Planning Files - Type
Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-r �.. <br />Attachment F <br />NAFtFtl�i1VE �OR YAFtfANC� ��Pi�CATIOf� <br />Lot 34 �f 2950 Owasso �tvd i�l. <br />We res�eetfuliy request a variance be issued far Lot 34 of Owasso Lake Park that <br />would a(low us to ir�nprove the existing driveway in preparation for building a house vn <br />the iot. The existing driveway was originally buift to service the home at 2950 Qwassa <br />Bivd W in the 1950's, but has not been used as such since the 1990's. In August of <br />2006, a small area south/southwest of the existing drive was classified as a Type 1 <br />wetland, a seasonally flooded basin (generally March through May). This creates a <br />confiict with the City Code 1016.16 which requires driveways ta have a 30 foot setback <br />from any wetland. The existing driveway has a 10-19 foot setback from fhis newiy <br />delineated marginal wetland. <br />4ur plans for this property include building a LEED certified h�me and maintaining as <br />much of the natural state of the property as possibie, including protecting the wetland <br />areas on the property. We want ta maintain and protect the wooded nature of the (ot <br />and limit any changes or plantings to predominantfy native species. At first, we <br />assumed it would be best to relocate the driveway. After studying the lot drainage <br />patterns, major trees, and existing driveway location, it is clear to us that relocatir�g the <br />driveway would be significantly more harmful to the property than a careful and <br />thoughtful improvement of the existing driveway. <br />Relocating the driveway wouVd involve remova! of a 13 inch diameter evergreen and <br />more than a dozen native deciduaus trees. !t would require 814 cubic yards of fill in a <br />{ow lying area which acts as a key drainage area for the street end of the lot, and <br />would destroy the area on the propesty which contains the greatest diversity af plants. <br />In additian, if we are required to relacate the driveway, we woufd have the prablem of <br />the existing driveway stil! being present and unable to support tree growth or native <br />plantings withaut extensive excavation of the grave[ base. Cost becomes a factor as <br />well, but mostly from the stand paint of cost to the naturaf quafities of the lot. Driveway <br />relocation has a dallar cost close to ihree times as much as improving what exists <br />and at the same time destroys more in terms of the natural state of the land. <br />In contrast, the existing driveway can be improved without removing any trees except <br />to complete the buckthorn eradication. The anfy 3 species of wetiand pfants present <br />(box elder, American elm, and greer� ash trees) would nat be harmed by having a <br />driveway closer than 30 feet. And most importantly, by regrading the existing driveway <br />to send runoff away from the wetland, water qua(ity can be maintained or even <br />improved. <br />!n conclusion, ail indications are that this driveway setback variance wif! not have a <br />detrimental impact on this marginai wetland. <br />Kris Simonson <br />Stew Roberts <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.