pf_03431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 c. Planning File 3431: A request by Tim Brucciani for a 44 foot Variance to Section 2 1016.16Aof the Roseville City Code to allow development of the vacant parcel along the 3 south side of North Gluek Lane. 4 5 Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary 6 of the project report dated September 4 2002. 7 8 Member Peper noted that he will leave the room and not participate in the case because of 9 potential conflict of interest (he lives in the area). 10 11 Thomas Paschke advised that the applicants submitted a request seeking a variance to Section 12 10 16.6A (Structure Design Setback) from the Roseville City Code to allow construction of a home 13 on the vacant parcel along North Gluek Lane. 14 15 The existing parcel has been determined to have a Type 2 (PEMlBd) wetland on the western 1/3 16 to 1/2 of the parcel. Section 10l6.16A requires a 50 foot setback from any wetland, no matter 17 what type or grade. 18 19 The applicants have been working with the Rice Creek Watershed to fill a small portion of the 20 wetland consistent with MN Rule, Chapter 8420.0122, subd. 9A (3)), which will slightly increase 21 the developable area of the parcel, but more importantly create a highly improved and more 22 aesthetically pleasing wetland. 23 24 Mr. Paschke further advised that based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 25 of the project report dated October 2, 2002, staff recommends approval of a 40 foot variance to 26 Section 10 16.16A of the Roseville City Code for Tim & Marcia Bmcciani - Horvath to allow 27 construction of a principal structure and attached garage on the vacant parcel along North Gluek 28 Lane, subject to the following conditions: 29 30 a. Setbacks established for this parcel of: Front Yard - 30 feet; Rear Yard 30 feet; Interior 31 Side Yard (east) 10 feet; and Wetland Side Yard (west) 10 feet. 32 33 b. The proposed principal structure and attached home plan being revised to meet the newly 34 established setback requirements indicated above. 35 36 c. The principal structure meeting the requirements of Section 1016.17 A of the City Code, 37 which may require a lowest floor elevation of three feet above the "new wetland boundary", an 38 item reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 39 40 d. The City Planner receiving notice of approval from the Rice Creek Watershed for the 41 proposed wetland revision plan. 42 43 e. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and 44 vanance. 45 46 The parcel was created in 1985. The MnDNR has found that the wetland is not protected or 47 regulated by MnDNR, but by the Rice Creek Watershed. 48 49 Member Traynor asked why the property was not protected by the DNR (governed by Rice Creek 50 and Shoreland Ordinance). Does the City have authority to approve? (yes). Deb Bloom reported 51 that Rice Creek has approved the application. The applicant found the staff presentation adequate 52 and accurate. 53 54 Kenneth Lancaster, adjoining neighbor, asked for details of the wetland and setbacks adjacent to 55 his property. He does not object to a structure on the site. The site does need relief so that water 56 can move along or through the site.