Laserfiche WebLink
<br />WHEREAS, Brucciani-Horvath proposal desires to construct their home on the lot they <br />purchased in 1985 10 feet from the newly established wetland delineation boundary; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the placement of the principal structure and attached garage requires a 40 <br />foot variance to Section 10 16.16A of the Roseville City Code; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br />Brucciani-Horvath variance request on October 2,2002, and recommended (5-0) approval of the <br />request, based on findings outlined in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report <br />dated October 2, 2002. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to grant <br />Timothy & Marsha Brucciani-Horvath a 40foot variance to Section 1016.16A of the Roseville <br />City Code based on the findings in Section 5 of the project report dated October 21, 2002, and <br />subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />a. Setbacks established for this parcel of: Front Yard - 30 feet; Rear Yard - 30 feet; <br />Interior Side Yard (east) 10 feet; and Wetland Side Yard (west) 10 feet. <br /> <br />b. The proposed principal structure and attached home plan being revised to meet <br />the newly established setback requirements indicated above. <br /> <br />c. The principal structure meeting the requirements of Section 1016.17 A of the City <br />Code, which may require a lowest floor elevation of three feet above the "new <br />wetland boundary", an item reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. <br /> <br />d. The City Planner receiving notice of approval from the Rice Creek Watershed for <br />the proposed wetland revision plan. <br /> <br />e. The City Planner and applicants to work with the Rice Creek Watershed on <br />additional buffer strip landscaping between the proposed home and wetland, <br />should the Watershed deem the additional landscaping beneficial for wetland <br />protection. <br /> <br />f. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans <br />and variance. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Schroeder and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Kough, <br />Maschka, Klausing, Schroeder, Kysylyczyn <br /> <br />and the following voted against: None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />2 <br />