2016-03-02_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PDC LANNINGIVISIONOMMENTS 46 The Planning staff has discussed the proposed development and considering both the uniqueness 47 of the site as well as the form-based Zoning Code requirements in §1005.02 and §1005.04, has 48 concluded that few developments could achieve full compliance given the sites constraints. 49 Planning staff also believes that because the site’s location (at the intersection of two busy streets 50 with no other commercial properties nearby), the requirements of addressing the public realm 51 and fostering pedestrian connection are not necessarily the most relevant or salient elements in 52 the Code for this development. 53 Additionally, it appears the number of required parking spaces is greater than the proposal and 54 possibly demand. Although parking requirements are not predicated solely on parking demand, 55 an animal hospital use, even as proposed, with seven exam rooms, four surgery/procedure areas, 56 three treatment rooms, and employee offices, does not justify needing 61 parking spaces, since 57 most customers will have appointments and the animal hospital/clinic plans to have between 18- 58 20 staff during their peak activity hours and 2-5 during the overnight hours. If parking becomes 59 an issue, the applicant can adjust parking demand through its scheduling activity. 60 The City Planner has worked with the applicant’s consultant to develop design standards that 61 both address reasonable building placement and complies with acceptable site and building 62 standards. 63 VA ARIANCENALYSIS 64 RV: Section 1009.04C of the City Code establishes 65 EVIEW OF ARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS a mandate that the Variance Board make five specific findings about a variance request as a 66 prerequisite for approving the variance.In the case of CPAH, the proposal requires variances 67 from §1005.02.A, Corner Building Placement; §1005.04.F, Frontage Requirement; and §1019.04 68 and Table 1019-1 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance. Specifically the Code requires the 69 building to be placed in the southeast corner of the parcel, have a building presence along either 70 street frontage a maximum of five feet from the property line, and to have no more that 85% 71 improvement area. The applicant seeks to place the building at the opposite side of the lot and 72 not in the corner or have a corner street presence. The Zoning Code also required this use to 73 provide 61 parking spaces, however the current proposal is designed with 46 parking spaces. 74 Planning Division staff has reviewed the application and offers the following draft findings. 75 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff finds 76 that the proposed development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 77 (Commercial Goals and Policies) in that it represents continuing investment in an 78 existing commercial property, achieves efficient use of the land, provides safe vehicular 79 and pedestrian movements, allows for adequate parking, incorporates generous 80 landscaping, and ensures a creative aesthetic character. The proposal also achieves a 81 number of the General Land Use Goals and Policies identified in Chapter 4 of the 82 Roseville 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 83 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. 84 Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the 85 zoning ordinance because although the redevelopment will result in a building not placed 86 at the property corner or fronting one or both of the adjacent public streets, the proposed 87 plan addresses all other Code requirements and makes efficient use of the property. Such 88 substantial reinvestment is the basis of the current Zoning Ordinance. 89 PF16-005_RVBA_030216 Page 3 of 5