2016-03-02_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

only a one-car facility, Planning Divisionstaffwould have been supportive of the 45 proposed two-car expansion; even though the result would have been athree-car garage, 46 staff felt that the proposal would a reasonable way to create a functional garage. 47 However, the home already includes a two-car garage, inconvenient though the tandem 48 arrangement might be, and Planning Division staff cannot recall supporting a variance 49 request that would have facilitated a four-car garage. And the applicant’s narrative 50 indicates that they would be content enough to parkon the driveway, but for the 51 messiness of the birch tree branches reaching over the driveway parking area. 52 Because the proposal would create a four-car garage, and because the need for the 53 variance could be eliminated by trimming or removing the offending birch tree, Planning 54 Divisionstaff believes that the proposaldoes not make “reasonable”use ofthe subject 55 propertyas intended by the zoning code. 56 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 57 landowner.The subject property is 80 feet wide, which is less than the minimum required 58 width established in the subdivision code, but the parcel was likely created prior to the 59 adoption of those standards in 1956. If the parcel conformed to the 85-foot width 60 requirement,it is possible that a more convenient two-car garage could be created 61 without the requested variance.Planning Division staff believesthat narrow parcel width 62 isthekind ofunique characteristicthat could justifythe approval of the requested 63 variance. 64 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.Most, if not 65 all, of the homes in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property have garages 66 which do conform to the standards of the zoning code. 67 Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code also explains that the purpose of a varianceis “to 68 permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a 69 parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the 70 zoning.” Theproposalappears to compare favorably with mostof theaboverequirements 71 essential for approving variances, but this provision of the zoning code is another way of making 72 sure properties can be put to “reasonable use” as discussed above. The zoning code intends for a 73 residential property to be developed with a suitable residence and a serviceable garage. Because 74 the property already has a two-car garage, even though the garage does not accommodate 75 everything the homeowner would like, Planning Division staff finds that the property is currently 76 being used to the extent intended by the zoningcode. 77 Roseville’s Development Review Committee(DRC) met on February 11, 2016,todiscuss this 78 application.The only concern of the DRC not discussed above was that the proposed garage 79 addition (and the presumed expansion of the driveway to match the additional garage width) 80 might cause the property to exceed 30% coverage of impervious surfaces. If the variance were to 81 be approved, the homeowner would need to complete a Residential Storm Water Permit 82 application to mitigate the additional rain water runoff generated by the additional impervious 83 area. 84 PC UBLIC OMMENT 85 At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has receivedone phone call and one 86 email expressing some level of concern and opposition to the proposal.The written comments 87 are included with this application as Attachment D. 88 PF16-008_RVBA_20160302 Page 3of 4