Laserfiche WebLink
PROJECT REVIEW HISTORY <br />• Application submitted: September 6, 2006 <br />• Determined complete: September 8, 2006 <br />• Sixty-day review deadline: November 5, 2006 <br />• Variance Board action: October 4, 2006 <br />• Appeal of Variance Board decision received: October 16, 2006 <br />• Project report recommendation: October 23, 2006 <br />• Anticipated City Council action: October 23, 2006 <br />2.0 STAFF COMMENT: <br />2.1 Wetlands, whether naturally occurring or man-made, are identified by three features: <br />hydric soils that are developed over time in wet conditions, hydrology characterized by <br />standing water or saturated soil for at least part of the growing season, and vegetation <br />that is suited to wet soil conditions. <br />2.2 Section 1016.16 (Wetland Setbacks) of the City Code requires a 50-foot setback for <br />residential structures from the delineated boundary of a wetland. This is in contrast to the <br />required 10-foot setback from storm ponds that do not exhibit the soils, hydrology, and <br />vegetation characteristic of wetlands. <br />2.3 The proposed construction is considered an expansion of the residential structure and <br />therefore not a legal encroachment into required setbacks. <br />2.4 The applicant's Site Plan (Attachment C) indicates that the 50-foot setback from the <br />current delineation of the wetland boundary overlaps part of the existing structure and <br />nearly all of the proposed addition. City staff has determined that it would unreasonable <br />to require the applicant to observe a 50-foot setback from this new wetland boundary, <br />which encompasses more of the lot than the originally delineated. <br />2.5 In such cases where a natural wetland has been expanded because of its operation as a <br />storm water pond, Community Development and Engineering staff recommends requiring <br />a 50-foot setback from the previously-delineated boundary of the natural wetland <br />(Attachment D). <br />2.6 A review of the surrounding area reveals that the McDaniels' home stands substantially <br />closer to the wetlands than many of the homes adjacent to this wetland area. <br />2.7 The applicant is the original owner of the home, and based on City records, the existing <br />structure appears to have been built up to the required 50-foot setback from the "as-built" <br />wetland boundary delineation, in addition to having been built up to all other required <br />setback lines. Attachment E illustrates the position of the house on the lot relative to the <br />wetland boundary and the required setbacks; the "as-built" survey was created in May, <br />1995 when the storm sewer infrastructure was designed and installed. <br />2.8 Mr. McDaniel also supplied surveys appearing to show alternative wetland boundaries. <br />Attachment F, the survey on which Attachment E is based, includes the word "wetland", <br />but the related boundary is impossible to discern. In a conversation with Roseville's <br />PF3787_RCA_Appeal_102306 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />