2013_0909_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0B ACKGROUND 13 4.1The proposed is a continuation of the effort to refine regulations 14 ZONING TEXT CHANGE that are intended to facilitate reasonable and beneficial improvements to residential 15 properties when those improvements represent minor deviations from certain standard 16 zoning requirements. Roseville’s housing stock has generally been well maintained, but 17 as the space needs and preferences of homeowners change over time, even small 18 improvements can be limited by zoning regulations. For much of Roseville’s history, a 19 variance was required for even minor deviations from Code requirements but, if the 20 property owner could not demonstrate the “hardship” condition essential for approving a 21 variance, the homeowner would be discouraged from continuing to make investments in 22 the property. 23 4.2In 1999 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow the Community Development 24 Director to review and approve (subject to certain conditions and criteria) limited 25 encroachments into required setbacks without requiring the homeowner prove that s/he 26 would be burdened by some undue hardship if the provisions of the Code were strictly 27 enforced. The policy decision at that time was that facilitating ongoing investment in 28 Roseville’s aging housing stock on a case-by-case basis was more preferable than 29 relaxing the zoning requirements across the board (e.g., reducing the required front 30 setback from 30 feet to 25 feet) or effectively preventing reasonable improvements by 31 strictly enforcing the existing City Code. Since that “Setback Permit” process was 32 adopted, at least 175 such minor deviations were reviewed administratively through June 33 2008, most of which were approved, since applications are typically not submitted if the 34 primary conditions for approval cannot be achieved by the property owner. Without such 35 an administrative process of review and approval, the vast majority of the residential 36 improvements represented by the Setback Permit applications would never have been 37 made because of the lack of a true “hardship”. 38 4.3Then, in 2008, Roseville expanded the administrative approval process to address slight 39 increases in impervious coverage beyond the standard limits, and the Setback Permit was 40 renamed as the less-specific “Administrative Deviation.” Since additional impervious 41 surfaces increase storm water runoff, Administrative Deviations for excess impervious 42 coverage were only approved with the condition that the excess storm water be calculated 43 and infiltrated on the property by, say, installation of a rain garden. Such a condition was 44 consistent with all impervious coverage variances for the preceding couple of years. 45 4.4While Roseville had now found a way to both allow small increases in impervious 46 coverage and to mitigate the resulting increase in storm water runoff, the City had not yet 47 established a process for ensuring that a required rain garden, for example, would 48 continue to function properly over time. Without proper, ongoing maintenance, silt and 49 debris carried by storm water will eventually clog rain gardens, pervious paving systems, 50 and so on, causing them to fail and allowing the excess storm water to run off of the site 51 and cause problems somewhere down stream. A process to ensure the ongoing mitigation 52 of storm water related to excess impervious coverage had been roughly worked out in 53 2010 and written in to the new zoning code adopted in December of that year. Since then, 54 the Residential Storm Water Permit regulations have been fully established within 55 Roseville’s Engineering Division, and the proposed is intended 56 ZONING TEXT CHANGE remove the technical requirements from the zoning code in order to leave regulation to 57 the more-qualified Engineering Division staff. 58 PROJ0017-Improvement_Area-RCA_090913.doc Page 2 of 3