2016-07-13_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RVBA Attachment D c. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances 35 because the rear yard of the subject property abuts the side yard of its neighbor, so the 36 proposed encroachment of the structure into the subject property’s rear yard would 37 not be encroaching upon the neighbor’s rear yard where greater space and privacy are 38 expected, and while the additional height of the structure within the substandard front 39 setback will increase the building mass in nonconforming location, the existing 40 mature trees should help to diminish the appearance of the second story. Furthermore, 41 the proposed front porch would extend closer to the front property line than 42 permitted, but the scale of the proposed greater encroachment (i.e., 5¼ feet into a 21- 43 foot setback) is equivalent to the porch encroachment permitted by the zoning code. 44 d. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner because the 45 proposed development features a moderately sized house, an attached, two-car garage 46 that is set behind the front of the house, and a front porch, configured in such a way 47 as to preserve existing, mature tree. 48 e. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 49 landowner because the subject property was platted and the former home was built in 50 1955, before Roseville had adopted subdivision and zoning codes; the substandard 51 depth and irregular shape of the property complicate the design of a home that 52 conforms to applicable zoning requirements, especially when it would have to 53 account for a foundation and basement excavation that cannot be used. 54 f. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality because allowing the 55 proposed house and porch to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks would 56 facilitate a larger home to be built, partly within the required front yard, but it would 57 not create a new nonconforming setback for the home, the attached garage would be 58 marginally farther from the rear property line than the former detached garage, and 59 the porch would be a desirable feature that enhances the residential character of the 60 home despite part of it standing closer to the front property line than the zoning code 61 allow 62 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville Variance Board, to approve 63 the requested variance to §1004.08 of the City Code, based on the proposed plan and the 64 testimony offered at the public hearing. 65 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Variance 66 Board Member ____ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: ______; 67 and ____ voted against; 68 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 69 Page 2 of 3