My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 03062023
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2023
>
CCP 03062023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2023 2:19:11 PM
Creation date
3/3/2023 2:18:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
3/6/2023
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
239
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
RCA Attachment D <br />a.Discuss Potential Phase II Zoning Code Amendments Regarding Shoreland <br />and Sustainability Regulations <br />Community Development Director Janice Gundlach briefly highlighted this item <br />as detailed in the Request for Council Action and related attachments dated January <br />30, 2023. <br />Ms. Rita Trapp, HKGi, made a presentation on Roseville’s Shoreland Ordinance. <br />Councilmember Etten indicated on the stormwater management overlay, he won- <br />dered if the rules for those properties, one hundred feet from the stormwater ponds <br />be essentially the same as what is being seen in the overlay district. <br />Ms. Trapp explained those are rules regarding buffers of wetlands and what can be <br />done within those areas. She indicated impervious surface is managed through the <br />shoreland as well as through the stormwater but she noted she would have to check <br />on that. <br />C <br />ouncilmember Etten explained if someone is seeking a variance to a shoreland <br />setback then the person would need to do the twenty percent but he wondered if <br />that would depend on the size of the variance because a different variance might <br />have a larger impact. He asked if a minimum standard is going to be set or would <br />the only standard shift. <br />M <br />s. Trapp explained she would interpret this as the minimum standard that is the <br />threshold that needs to be applied if someone is going to ask for a setback or im- <br />pervious surface. There is always an opportunity with conditions for variances to <br />adjust those conditions based on the magnitude. This is not setting a threshold from <br />her perspective. It would be something the Planning Commission would look at <br />and the Planning Commission and the City Council would be able to add additional <br />conditions if needed. These are the ones to start with. <br />Ms. Gundlach noted the DNR would be a review party associated with that variance <br />application. Depending on what is negotiated between the property owner, the Plan- <br />ning Commission, the Variance Board and the City Council, the DNR gets to weigh <br />in on that as well. <br />Councilmember Etten indicated on the map of water bodies, there are some water <br />bodies that are clearly not lakes and are more in the ditch category. But there are <br />few that are not buffered on the map so he wondered if there was a reason, a certain <br />acreage or size of water body before it counts for this regulation. <br />Mayor Roe thought the simple answer to this was that the main bodies of water are <br />designated by the DNR and the other ones are designated by the City. He imagined <br />the only ones shown are those that are actually designated by the City. <br />Ms. Trapp explained these are historically designated and a change was not made <br />and no new bodies of water were added but there were bodies of water that were <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.