2016-07-13_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

VA ARIANCENALYSIS 43 Section 1009.04Cof the City Code establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five 44 specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance.Planning 45 Division staff has reviewed the applicationand offers the following draft findings. 46 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Planning Division staff believes 47 the proposed new construction represents the kind of reinvestment in residential 48 neighborhoods promoted by the Comprehensive Plan.Moreover, theencroachmentinto 49 the required front yard setbackis the result of reusing an existing foundation, rather than 50 excavating it and disposing of it in a landfill,and not excavating to remove the 51 foundation and sewer and water services helps to preserve mature trees near the house 52 that would likely be damaged or killed by such a disturbance, both of which are 53 consistent with environmental goals in the Comprehensive Plan. 54 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances.The 55 rear yard of the subject property abuts the side yard of its neighbor, so the proposed 56 encroachment of the structureinto the subject property’s rear yardwould not be 57 encroaching upon the neighbor’s rear yard where greater space and privacy are expected, 58 andwhile the additional height of the structure within the substandard front setback will 59 increase the building mass in nonconforming location, the existing mature trees should 60 help to diminish the appearance of the second story.Furthermore, the proposed front 61 porch would extend closer to the front property line than permitted, but the scale of the 62 proposed greaterencroachment (i.e.,5¼ feet into a 21-foot setback)is equivalent to the 63 porch encroachment permitted by the zoning code. 64 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner.The proposed 65 development featuresa moderately sized house, an attached, two-cargaragethat is set 66 behind the front of the house, and a front porch, configured in such a way as to preserve 67 existing, mature trees. 68 d. There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 69 landowner.The subject property was platted and the former home was built in 1955, 70 before Roseville had adopted subdivision and zoning codes; thesubstandard depth and 71 irregular shape of the propertycomplicate the design of a home that conforms to 72 applicable zoning requirements,especially when it would have to account for a 73 foundation and basement excavation that cannot be used. 74 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.Allowing 75 the proposed house and porch to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks would 76 facilitate a larger home to be built, partly within the required front yard, but it would not 77 create a new nonconformingsetback for the home, the attached garage would be 78 marginally farther from the rear property line than the former detached garage, and the 79 porch would be a desirable feature that enhances the residential character of the home 80 despite part of it standing closer to the front property line than the zoning code allows. 81 Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code also explains that the purpose of a varianceis “to 82 permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a 83 parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the 84 zoning.” Theproposalappears to compare favorably with all of theaboverequirements essential 85 for approving variances.Moreover,the practical difficulty iscreated by the unusual lot shape and 86 the fact that the existing foundation occupies the largest part of the buildable space between the 87 setback lines, the combination of which either forces a new home into the smaller part of the lot 88 PF16-017_RVBA_20160713 Page 3of 4