Variance Board Resolution_122 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

int� the re�uired front yard setback �s the result Qf reusin� an existir�g foundation, rather than excavating it and disposin� of it in a landfill, and not excavatin� to remove the foundation and 5ewer and w�ater services helps ta �reserv� mature trees n�ar the house that would likely be dama�ed or killed by such a disturbance, both of which are consistent with environrnental goals in the Comprehensive Plan. c. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zonin� o�dinances because the rear yard of the �ubject �roperty abuts the side yard of its neighbor, so the praposed encroachment of the structure into the subject property's rear yard would not be encroaching u�on the nei�hbor's rear yard where ��reater space and pr�vacy are expected, and w•hile the additional hei�ht of the structure �vithin the substandaEd front setback will increase the'building mass in nonconforming locatio�, the existin,� mature trees should help to diminish the appearance of the seeond story. Furthermore, the proposed front porch w-ouid extenc� closer to the front pro�erty line than permitted, but the scale of the prQposed greater �ncroachment (i.e., 5`/� feet into a 21-foot setback) is equivalent to the porch encroachment permitted by the zonin� cod�. d. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonab9e manner because the propo�ed development features a m�derately sized house, an attached, twa-car garage that is set behind the front of the house, and a front porch, canfigured in such a way as to preserve existing, mature tree. e. There are unique circumstances to the property which w°ere not created by the landowner because the subject property tivas platted and the former home was built in 19��, before Roseville had adopted subdivision and zonin� codes; the substandard depth and irregular shape of the property complicate the desi�n of a home that confarms to appiieable zaning requirements, especiaily when it would have to account �or a faundation and basement exeavation rhat cannat be used. f. The variance w�ill not alter the essential character afth� loeality because allowing the praposed house and poreh to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks r�ould facilitate a lar,er home to be built, partl� within the required front yard, but it w•ould not creat� a n�� nonconforming setback for the home, the attached garage �vould b�e marginally farther fram the rear property line than th� forrrier detached garage, and the porch would be a desirable feature that en�ances the residential character af the home despite part of it standinb closer to the front property line than the zoning code allow� I�OW THEREFORE BE IT RESQLVED, by t}�e Roseville Variance Board, to appro�•e the requested variance to � l OQ�.08 of the City Code, based on the above findings, the proposed plan, and the testimony offered at the public hearin�. The motion for the adoptifln of the foregoing resolucion was duly secor►ded by Varianee Board Member Daire and upon vote bein� taken thereon, the follow°ing voted in favor: Chair Murphy and Members Daire an� Gitzen; and none vated against: WHEREUPQN said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 2 of 3