2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Burke Avenue and County Road B, and the subdivisions of the three other tracts of RLS 135 56, the original lot seems to have been configured for subdivision in the future. The 136 rights-of-way standards were first established in the original subdivision code in 1956 137 and were changed to the present requirements in 1995, and the impervious coverage 138 limits were not established until 2001, combining to create the current circumstances. 139 Planning Division staff believes these are the kind of unique characteristics that justify 140 the approval of the requested variance. 141 e.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The 142 proposed subdivision and the existing improvements which would exceed 30% of the 143 area of the new Parcel A appear to be very similar to the existing improvements and 144 parcel configurations of the subject property’s neighbors. For this reason, the , 145 VARIANCE if approved, would not negatively alter the character of the surrounding residential 146 neighborhood. 147 Section 1104.05 (Variances) of the Subdivision Code indicates that variances may be granted 148 “\[w\]here there is undue hardship…” in applying the applicable regulations, but that “hardship” 149 language was revised by the state legislature in 2011. Variance process language in the zoning 150 code has been updated to reflect the new statute, and explains that the purpose of a variance is 151 “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to 152 a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by 153 the \[code\].” The proposal appears to compare favorably with all of the above criteria essential 154 for approving variances. Moreover, Engineering and Planning Division staff do not believe that 155 the regulations of the zoning and subdivision codes are intended to preclude the subdivision of 156 the subject property even though the subdivision cannot be approved without a variance to at 157 least one applicable development standard in the zoning and/or subdivision codes. Planning 158 Division staff believes that such a situation represents a practical difficulty which the variance 159 process is intended to relieve. 160 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on July 10 and 17, 2014 to discuss this 161 application. Beyond the above comments pertaining to the zoning and subdivision codes, the 162 DRC did not have any other significant comments about the proposal. 163 PC UBLICOMMENT 164 At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has received comments from the 165 homeowner at 946 Burke Avenue in response to the mailed notice. This individual expressed his 166 “adamant opposition” to the proposed subdivision, believing that large new houses on too-small 167 lots are inappropriate, and that the increased density of housing along with the increased traffic 168 would adversely affect the high quality of life which prompted him to purchase his home. 169 Because the public notice had indicated that the application involved a variance to the minimum 170 parcel size, it is unclear whether the homeowner would continue to oppose the subdivision if the 171 new parcels conformed to the codified standards. 172 RA ECOMMENDEDCTIONS 173 Adopt a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance to allow the property at 990 174 County Road B to be subdivided into two conforming parcels with nonconforming impervious 175 coverage on Parcel A, based on the comments and findings of this report and input received 176 during the public hearing, subject to the following conditions: 177 PF14-017_RCA_081114.doc Page 5 of 6