2006_1023_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� Appeal of Variance Board decision received: October 16,2006 � Project report recommendation: October 23,2006 * AnticipatedCity Council action: October23,2006 ��M STAFF COMMENT: �. � Wetlands, whether naturally occurring or man-made, are identified by three features: hydric soils that are developed over time in wet conditions, hydrology characterizedby standing water or saturated soil for at least part of the growing season, and vegetation that is suited to wet soil conditions. �,. � Section 1016.16 (Wetland Setbacks) of the City Code requires a 50-foot setback for residential structures from the delineatedboundary of a wetland. This is in contrast to the required 10-foot setback froxn storm ponds that do not exhibit the soils, hydrology, and vegetation characteristic of wetlands. ?. � The proposed construction is considered an expansion of the residential structure and therefore not a legal encroachment into required setbacks. �_4 The applicant's Site Plan (Attachment C) indicates that the 50-foot setback from the current delineation of the wetland boundary overlaps part of the existing structure and nearly all of the proposed addition. City staff has determined that it would unreasonable to require the applicant to observe a 50-foot setback from this new wetland boundary, which encompasses more of the lot than the originally delineated. '�.� In such cases where a natural wetland has been expanded because of its overation as a storm water pond, Community Development and Engineering staff recommends requiring a 50-foot setback from the previously-delineatedboundary of the natural �� r,iaicj f r�; I;ic.h r�:�� D). :�.� A review of the suzraurading area reveals that the McDaniels' home stands substantially closer to the wetlands than many of the homes adjacent to this wetland area. ?.? The applicant is the original owner of the home, and based on City records, the existing structure appears to have been built up to the required 50-foot setback from the "as-built" wetland boundary delineation, in addition to having been built up to all other required setback lines. Attachment E illustrates the vosition of the house on the lot relative to the wetland boundary and the required setbacks; the "as-built" survey was created in May, 1995 when the storm sewer infrastructurewas designedand installed. 2.8 Mr. McDaniel also supplied surveys appearing to show alternative wetland boundaries. Attachment F, the survey on which Attachment E is based, includes the word "wetland", but the related boundary is impossible to discern. In a conversation with Roseville's Associate Pla�aner, Tim Kytonen from Rehbein Companies (the firm that produced the survey) noted that while he produced the lot survey, the "wetland" reference on the survey does not indicate a boundary, but instead was simply transferred from work produced by Schoell Madso�, the surveyors responsible for producing the plat for the Planned Unit Development. P�3��_xcA_a�p��_ioa3or Page 2 of 5