pf08-003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 � . M v � circumstances unique to the properry not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect. " 5.7 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed bv the official controls: The existing garage allows one vehicle to be parked inside, but City staff and the Variance Board have supported and approved variances to accommodate two enclosed stalls as a means of achieving City policies of maintaining and improving Roseville's housing stock. Because of the way the house is situated on this property, even a small two-car garage such as the one currently proposed cannot be built without a variance. The Planning Division has determined that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the VARIANCE request is approved. 5.8 The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unipue to the property not created bv the landowner: The property was improved in 1955, at which time a one-car garage met the needs of the average household; the growing need for additional vehicles is largely a result of social and economic changes in the intervening years, and not poor or short-sighted decisions on the part of the property owners. While this kind of situation is not uncommon in a 1950's suburb like Roseville, it is a circumstance that is unique to properties created and improved prior to the almost universal need for a household to own two or more vehicles. The Planning Division has �determined that tlre plight of the landowner is due to unique circumstances not created by the landowner. 5.9 The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localitv: The proposed garage expansion would not be out of character with the surrounding residential area as many of the nearby homes already have attached garages that are similar in size. The Planning Division has determined that the allowance of the requested VARIANCE will not alter the essential character of the locality, nor adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare of the city or adjacent properties. 6.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Section 5 of this report, the Planning Division recommends �PROVa[, of Ms. Tamura's request for a 3-foot vAx��rcE to the required principal structure setback from a side property line established in § 1012.O1B (Alternative Lot Requirements) of the City Code, to allow the proposed expansion of the attached garage, and a 3-foot v�ANCE to §703.04 (Driveway Standards) of the City Code to enable an expansion of the driveway to match the edge of the proposed new garage at 1000 Woodhill Drive, subject to the following conditions: a. The size and location of the proposed addition shall be consistent with the plans reviewed with this application and shall not be less than 2 feet from the side property line; b. Any expansion of the driveway shall remain at least 2 feet from the side property line and shall not exceed 26 feet in width at the front property line, and; PF08-003 RVBA 020608 Page 3 of 4