My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_0511_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_0511_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2022 8:56:41 AM
Creation date
1/7/2022 8:56:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
5/11/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
149
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
ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT B <br />76 Division staff finds the proposal to construct a modest, well thought-out, designed, and <br />77 situated home on the lot at 907 Burke Avenue that preserves numerous trees and installs the <br />78 maximum number of trees consistent with tree planting standards, is consistent with these <br />79 Comprehensive Plan Policies. <br />80 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. The intent <br />81 of §1011.04 Tree Preservation and Restoration in All Districts is to preserve as many trees as <br />82 possible and to replace those trees removed. In 2014, however, §1011.04 was amended to <br />83 include stricter standards. Three of these standards (inclusion of all non-invasive trees, a <br />84 replacement multiplier effect, and a mandatory replacement or a required fee) have made <br />85 development of single-family homes on wooded lots challenging. Planning Division has <br />86 reviewed the proposed plan by the Whitcomb’s and finds the proposed home, and its tree <br />87 removal, to be designed in good faith and meets the intent of §1011.04. <br />88 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division <br />89 staff finds the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property given the professionally <br />90 prepared tree preservation and home placement plans. The new home is not excessively <br />91 large, complies with all other Code requirements, and limits removal to 6 of 22 trees. In light <br />92 of this, Planning Division staff finds, in this instance, the requirements of §1011.04.J.8 to be <br />93 overly rigid, limiting home design and placement on a wooded lot. Furthermore, the <br />94 Division views the consequences of §1011.04.J.8 to be burdensome for single-family <br />95 residential construction, no matter how well-intentioned this requirement was when adopted. <br />96 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. <br />97 The unique circumstance of this request is more directly related to the requirements of <br />98 §1011.04 of the Zoning Code than it is to a unique characteristic of the property. However, <br />99 one could observe that having a wooded lot is a unique circumstance for a residential lot in <br />100 Roseville. That said, §1011.04 and the heightened requirements of §1011.04.J.8 amended <br />101 into Code in 2014 create unintended consequences for single-family homeowners with <br />102 wooded lots. Although the Whitcomb’s are removing just 6 trees, three are heritage trees <br />103 that have a 2 to 1-inch multiplier. The end result of removed treesversus preserved trees is a <br />104 requirement to plant 77 caliper inches of trees or 26 trees 3 caliper inches in diameter. While <br />105 planting 26 trees may appear to be unassuming, the process is cumbersome when combined <br />106 with the process of building a new home and the fee for not seeking out lots to plant the trees <br />107 is overly burdensome for a residential property owner’s home construction budget. Lastly, <br />108 an maybe more importantly, the proposed home cannot physically be built anywhere else on <br />109 the property to avoid removal of the heritage trees that are causing the replacement figure to <br />110 be so extensive. <br />111 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Planning <br />112 Division staff has determined the requirements of §1011.04, and more specifically <br />113 §1011.04.J.8, were not developed, nor intended, to be unreasonable or burdensome to single- <br />114 family home owners building homes on vacant wooded lots. With that said, this variance <br />115 seeks allowance to plant 3 to 5 trees on the property, as opposed to 21 trees. Additionally, <br />116 the variance seeks permission to avoid the process of being required to seek out locations <br />117 within 1,000 feet of the lot to plant the remaining 21 trees or to pay the required replacement <br />118 tree fee of $500 per tree, which results in an overall fee of over $10,000. The Planning <br />119 Division has determined the granting of this variance for the property at 907 Burke Avenue <br />120 will not alter or significantly change the character of the property or the surrounding <br />121 neighborhood. <br />PF19-013_RVBA_907Burke_071019 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.