2002_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 c. Planning FYIe 3431: A request by Tim Brucciani for a 44 foot Variance to Section 1016.16Aof the Roseville City Code to allow development of the vacant parcel along the south side of North Gluek Lane. Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project report dated September 4 2002. Member Peper noted that he will lea�e the room and not participate in the case because of potential conflict of interest (he lives in the area). Thomas Paschke advised that the applicants submitted a request seeking a variance to Section 10 16.6A (Structure Design Setback) from the Roseville City Code to allow construction of a home on the vacant parcel along North Gluek Lane. The e�sting parcel has been determined to ha�e a Type 2(PEM1Bd) wetland on the western 1/3 to 1l2 of the parcel. Section 1016.16A requires a 50 foot setback from any wetland, no matter what type or grade. The applicants ha�e been working with the Rice Creek Watershed to fill a small portion of the wetland consistent with MN Rule, Chapter 8420.0122, subd. 9A (3)), which will slightly increase the developable area of the parcel, but more importantly create a highly improved and more aesthetically pleasing wetland. Mr. Paschke further advised that based on the information provided and the findings in Section 5 of the project report dated October 2, 2002, staff recommends approval of a 40 foot variance to Section 1016.16A of the Roseville City Code for Tim 8z Marcia Brucciani — Horvath to allow construction of a principal structure and attached garage on the vacant parcel along North Gluek Lane, subject to the following conditions: a. Setbacks established for this parcel of: Front Yard � 30 feet Rear Yard — 30 feet Interior Side Yard (east) 10 feet and Wetland Side Yard (west) 10 feet. b. The proposed principal structure and attached home plan being revised to meet the newly established setback requirements indicated above. c. The principal structure meeting the requirements of Section 10 16.17A of the City Code, which may require a lowest floor elevation of three feet above the "new wetland boundary", an item reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. d. The City Planner receiving notice of approval from the Rice Creek Watershed for the proposed wetland revision plan. The review and approval of a building permit consistent with the approved plans and variance. The parcel was created in 1985. The MnDNR has found that the wetland is not protected or regulated by MnDNR, but by the Rice Creek Watershed. Member Traynor asked why the property was not protected by the DNR (governed by Rice Creek and Shoreland Ordinance). Does the City ha�e authority to approve? (yes). Deb Bloom reported that Rice Creek has approved the application. The applicant found the staff presentation adequate and accurate. Kenneth Lancaster, adjoining neighbor, asked for details of the wetland and setbacks adjacent to his properiy. He does not object to a structure on the site. The site does need relief so that water can move along or through the site.