My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-06-03_VB_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Variance Board
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-06-03_VB_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2016 4:49:03 PM
Creation date
4/8/2016 4:48:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Variance Board
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
can’t help but become a more conspicuous encroachment, even though part of the structure will <br />47 <br />be below grade. <br />48 <br />City Code §1004.08C (Improvement Area) limits impervious surfaces on a residential property to <br />49 <br />30% of the overall parcel area. Theapplicant measured the existing principal structure, detached <br />50 <br />garage, driveways, and sidewalks on the property and calculated that these improvements total <br />51 <br />6,027 square feet. Ramsey County’s data on the parcel’s boundaries allow the parcel area to be <br />52 <br />calculated at approximately 19,933 square feet; the existing impervious surfaces, then, cover just <br />53 <br />over 30% of the parcel area. This figure is slightly different than the applicant’s calculation, but <br />54 <br />the difference is due to the fact that the parcel area figures in Ramsey County’s database (which <br />55 <br />Mr. Snell used, reasonably, for his calculation) are often at odds with the parcel area calculated <br />56 <br />by measuring the parcel boundaries. In the case of a variance, which would attempt to account <br />57 <br />for the full deviation from zoning code standards, it is prudent to use the more conservative <br />58 <br />calculation as represented in this paragraph. The effect of the discrepancy on this application in <br />59 <br />minimal, though, since each of the individual elements of Mr. Snell’s proposal would cause the <br />60 <br />impervious coverage to exceed the 30% limit, so any combination of the proposed improvements <br />61 <br />would necessitate the requested variance from this part of the zoning code. <br />62 <br />The intent of the limit on impervious surfaces is to ensure that storm water runoff from excess <br />63 <br />impervious coverage does not become problematic for surrounding properties or for the public <br />64 <br />storm sewer infrastructure. If improvements are allowed which increase the impervious coverage <br />65 <br />on this property, best management practices can be required to mitigate the storm water from the <br />66 <br />impervious surface area beyond the 30% limit. <br />67 <br />68 <br />R: Section 1009.04C of the City Code establishes <br />69 EVIEW OF VARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS <br />a mandate that the Variance Board make fivespecific findings about a variance request as a <br />70 <br />prerequisite for approving the variance. <br />71 <br />The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff believes <br />72 <br />that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because, while the proposed <br />73 <br />improvements do represent reinvestment in a residential property, the scale of the proposed <br />74 <br />garage addition/conversion is much more commercial in nature than residential. <br />75 <br />The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. Planning <br />76 <br />Division staff believes that a large additional encroachment into the required front yard <br />77 <br />setback as proposed is not in harmony with the intent of the zoning code because it would <br />78 <br />significantly increase a nonconforming condition that is already unique in the neighborhood. <br />79 <br />Staff also believes that the expansion of a front-facing overhead garage door is inconsistent <br />80 <br />with the purpose of the pertinent zoning requirement, which has been discussed at length and <br />81 <br />is explicitly intended to “create streets that are pleasant and inviting, and to promote building <br />82 <br />faces which emphasize living area as the primary function of the building or function of the <br />83 <br />residential use.” <br />84 <br />The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner.While the existing <br />85 <br />detached garage is large enough to accommodate up to 6 closely-spaced automobiles, the <br />86 <br />applicant indicatesthat the 2005 home addition makes daily parking in the detached garage <br />87 <br />unnecessarily difficult, which puts greater value on the usability of the attached, tuck-under <br />88 <br />garage. If that attached garage is failing, then it is reasonable to repair it, and the Variance <br />89 <br />Board has historically been willing to consider variances to allow one-car garages to be <br />90 <br />PF15-006_RVBA_060315 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.