Laserfiche WebLink
20% the largest size of detached garage that thezoning code has ever allowed under any <br />44 <br />circumstances. <br />45 <br />c. <br />The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner.A “reasonable” <br />46 <br />garage on a residential property has long been interpreted as accommodating two vehicles <br />47 <br />and a moderate amount of storage for household items and equipment.Variances have <br />48 <br />been granted when necessary to achieve such two-car garages where the zoning standards <br />49 <br />prohibit it, but the size of garage that can be built on the subject property exceeds that <br />50 <br />which needs relief from the variance process. <br />51 <br />d. <br />There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the <br />52 <br />landowner.Despite being a shoreland lot, the property does not have unique <br />53 <br />circumstances that relate to increased garage size. <br />54 <br />e. <br />The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.Other large <br />55 <br />garages are present in the area, even those that are detached and near the street, but while <br />56 <br />some appear to approach the 1,008 square-foot limit, Planning Division staff does not <br />57 <br />have record of approvals for larger structures. <br />58 <br />Section 1009.04 (Variances) of the City Code also explains that the purpose of a varianceis “to <br />59 <br />permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to a <br />60 <br />parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by the <br />61 <br />zoning.” No such practical difficulty hasbeen demonstrated in this case. <br />62 <br />Roseville’s Development Review Committee(DRC) met on August 4 and August 25, 2016,to <br />63 <br />discuss this application and did not have any additional concerns beyond the issues discussed <br />64 <br />above, assuming that the proposal does not cause impervious coverage on the property to exceed <br />65 <br />25%. <br />66 <br />OAC <br />UTSIDE GENCYOMMENT <br />67 <br />Notification of the application and the public hearing was sent to the MnDNR’s Regional <br />68 <br />Hydrologist to solicit any feedback she may have aboutthe proposal.No comments have yet <br />69 <br />been received at the time this RVBA was drafted. <br />70 <br />PC <br />UBLIC OMMENT <br />71 <br />At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has notreceived any <br />72 <br />communicationsfrom the publicaboutthe variancerequest. <br />73 <br />RA <br />ECOMMENDEDCTION <br />74 <br />Adopt aVariance Board Resolution <br />denyingthe requestedvarianceto §1004.02of the City <br />75 <br />Code to allowa detached garage larger than 1,008 square feet, based on the proposed plans, <br />76 <br />input offered during the public hearing,and the comments and findings outlined in this report; a <br />77 <br />draft resolution is included with this RVBA as Attachment D. <br />78 <br />AA <br />LTERNATIVE CTIONS <br />79 <br />Pass a motion to table the itemfor future action. <br />a.Tabling beyond October 21, 2016, <br />80 <br />may require extension of the 60-day action deadline established in Minn. Stat. §15.99 <br />81 <br />Adopt a resolution to approvethe requested approval. <br />b.Approvalmustbe supported by <br />82 <br />specific findings of fact based on the Variance Board’sreview of the application, <br />83 <br />applicable zoning or subdivision regulations, and the public record. <br />84 <br />PF16-024_RVBA_20160914 <br />Page 3of 4 <br /> <br />