Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: 09/09/98 <br />ITEM NO: 6e <br />Agenda Section: <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Proposed text amendments to City Code Section 1013.02C (Minor <br />Variances) and Section 1012.02 (required Yards and Open Space) <br />(PF3047) <br /> <br />1.0 BACKGROUND <br /> <br />The City Council has requested Planning Commission and staff to recommend <br />amendments to the City Code regarding minor variance procedures and setbacks, required <br />yards and open space. The Council would like an alternative to the current process that <br />sends numerous (approximately 50) minor variances and blanket variances - usually <br />setback issues - to the Council annually in which it is difficult to determine "physical <br />hardship". Yet it is necessary to review the "practical hardship" and encourage residential <br />property owners to continue investing and upgrading their properties. Council members <br />have asked for more clear language and more consistency in the reviews of variances, as <br />well as a streamlined process that reduces time and cost for the applicant. <br /> <br />2.0 AL TERNA TIVES <br /> <br />2.1 Staff has proposed a method of issuing "setback permits" that would eliminate the <br />need to hold a hearing and find a "physical hardship". A copy of that proposal is <br />attached. <br /> <br />2.2 Another alternative is to reduce the setback requirements in the code, specifying <br />permitted types of encroachments such as porches, garages, driveways, and rear <br />yard setbacks. Those areas where the code is proposed to change would allow <br />closer encroachments with little or no review. This implies that little or no additional <br />setback variances would be allowed except where a "physical hardship" could <br />clearly be demonstrated. <br /> <br />2.3 A third alternative is to simply redefine "physical hardship". This may require new <br />state legislation and changes to state statutes, as well as changes to the Roseville <br />City Code. <br /> <br />2.4 A fourth alternative is to do nothing to the Code, but simply enforce it more <br />stringently. Many cities have very few zoning setback variance cases because the <br />city policy is to interpret their zoning code "verbatim". Other cities have few <br /> <br />PF3047 - RPCA (09/09/98) - Page 1 of 2 <br />