pf_03431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 Deb Bloom explained the original drainage ditch which then was contained in a pipe. The north 3 portion of the lot will drain to the street. The gutters could be directed to the street. The 4 applicants will be deepening the basin, increasing the storage, and allowing more wildlife habitat. 5 A new management plan is being completed for this area. The amount of water moving south 6 (towards Lancaster) will decrease. 7 8 Member Stone asked how the basin will be deepened. Deb Bloom said the deepening will be 9 localized but will not solve the entire system plan. 10 11 Thomas Paschke explained the proposed setbacks. There is flexibility on the site with a ten foot 12 setback from the wetland. 13 14 Chair Duncan asked for clarification of staff recommendations on the wetland setbacks. Deb 15 Bloom explained the meander of the wetland edge. 16 17 Robert Fairenochi, 1892 Glueck Lane, who originally sold the lot, noted that in 1985 the applicant, 18 the Council and the Watershed agreed on the lot division. He approved of the proposal. 19 20 Member Bakeman stated she is concerned about a ten foot setback to a wetland, which requires a 21 40 foot variance. She prefers a larger setback from the wetlands. 22 23 Member Traynor asked if the concern was on the wetland or the proposed structure. Member 24 Bakeman stated it was concern for the impacts on the wetland such as runoff, fertilizer in the 25 wetland, high water. She said the depth could be changed to accommodate the wetland volume. 26 27 Member Stone said she was less concerned with setback from water's edge than by the 28 management of the setback area (a best management practice). 29 30 Chair Duncan noted that the pond will be an asset. It will be deepened. 31 32 Member Bakeman asked if a landscape plan could be added as a condition of the approval - a 33 commitment to the environment. Deb Bloom suggested a "no-mow" landscape buffer strip. 34 Thomas Paschke noted that the watershed is requiring a seeding and landscape plan to 35 buffer/enhance the wetland. 36 37 Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend approval of a 40 38 foot variance to Section 1016.06A (Structure Design Standards) of the Roseville City Code for 39 Tim and Marcia Brucciani-Horvath, to allow construction of a principal structure, attached garage 40 and other site improvements on the vacant parcel lying on the south side of North Gluek Lane, 41 based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project repOli dated October 42 2, 2002; and further, recommended conditions that the applicant provide a survey to the wetland 43 edge from which the ten foot building setback can be measured, and staff is to work with Rice 44 Creek Watershed and the applicant to create a landscape plan and buffer along the east boundary 45 of the wetland. 46 47 Ayes: 5 48 Nays: 0 49 Motion carried. 50 51