pf_03459 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

14 Staff determined that the request for an attached garage, a current amenity of the existing home, was a reasonable request. Staff further concluded that removing the existing attached garage and placing a detached garage in the rear yard was not a reasonable solution to the Beans situation. Staff reviews each request and considers current designs and amenities in reaching its conclusions. I have no exact figures for the increase in impervious coverage, but estimate that 400 square feet or more would be required in paved driveway surface. In review of the existing and proposed situations, I do not believe that sunlight and/or air circulation for your property is greatly impacted and that the homes livability is not reduced. 15 The Graham request is similar to the Bean request. Both have 40 foot minimum front yard setback requirements and in the case of Graham the variance was granted for a 12 foot encroachment. 16 Staff has not concluded that a detached garage is an undue hardship, but rather 5.10 states the following: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls: The Bean home, given its CUlTent configuration and location on the parcel, is unable to expand outward (increased footprint) without receiving approval of two variances. Requiring a detached garage with a long driveway or a double loaded single stall attached garage, still with a narrow width, are not reasonable options (Staff's opinion). The Community Development Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable use under the official controls if the two variances are 2;ranted. 17 City Code requires us to determine whether a variance will alter the essential character of the locality. Here, City Staff has concluded that the essential character of the locality is 1940's and 1950's single family homes built to standards different than today, and that the improvements proposed by Mr. Bean do not alter that characteristic of Roseville. The last statement in C of the variance criteria review states that the proposal will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, of the city or adjacent properties. Here, City Staff has concluded that the addition proposed by Mr. Bean, and more importantly the front yard encroachment, is not a public health or safety concern and will not change the general welfare of this neighborhood. Further, it would be Staff's determination that improvements to aging homes are necessary from time to time and required for growing families to stay in Roseville. Additionally these improvements add value to the neighborhood. 18 The building code regulates this to a distance of no more than a foot or a distance of two feet from the property line. I do not know the effect, should gutters not be maintained. I cannot control whether gutters are maintained, but the City has the ability to control drainage onto your property. Staff would expect the Beans to design in a swale along the north property boundary to direct storn1 water to the rear and front yards. Drainage is not allowed to be disbursed directly on to your parcel.