2016-03-02_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DPZA ETAILED ROPOSALAND ONING NALYSIS 1 The applicant proposes to construct a two-car addition to the existing tandem, two-car,attached 2 garage.The written narrative for this application indicates that the existing garage is a “single 3 car” size, but recent clarification from the applicant confirms that it is a tandem garage that is the 4 width of a typical one-car garage.The proposed 22’6” x 23’8”addition would be built onto the 5 front of the existing garage, largely standing on existing driveway and sidewalk surface, and the 6 front of the addition would stand about 9.5 feet in front of the predominant portion of the front of 7 the home.The site plan and written narrative detailing the proposal areincluded with this report 8 as Attachment C. 9 City Code §1004.05limits the forward projection of front-facing garage doors to 5 feet in front 10 of the residence.The site plan in Attachment C indicates that the front of the existing garage 11 stands about 13 feet behind the easternmost wall of the home (represented by the red dashed 12 line). The site plan also includes a 5-foot measurement extending forward from the easternmost 13 wall of the home, illustrating the maximum forward projection of the front-facing garage doors 14 allowed in §1004.05. The addition would extend the front-facing garage doors 9.5feet in front of 15 the home(as represented by the red, dashed line on the site plan in Attachment C), 4.5 feet 16 further than permitted, necessitating the requested variance. 17 VA ARIANCENALYSIS 18 Section 1009.04Cof the City Code establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five 19 specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance.Planning 20 Division staff has reviewed the applicationand offers the following draft findings. 21 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Although some ofthe 22 Comprehensive Plan’s goals related to creating residential neighborhoods with high- 23 quality design and pedestrian friendly streets have led to the creation of the zoning 24 provision at issue in this request, the Comprehensive Plan also promotes facilitating 25 continued investments in homes to ensure the ongoing vitality of existing residential 26 neighborhoods. Planning Division staff believesthe proposed two-car garage addition 27 embodies the sort of reinvestment that is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 28 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances.The 29 proposed location of the front-facing garage doors is 4.5 feet farther forward than what is 30 permitted by the zoning code, butit remains behind the required front yard setback area. 31 The zoning code also limits the amount of driveway and structure coverage on a 32 residential property; while a two-car garage addition could be built so the garage doors 33 faced southward (thereby obviating this specific variance request), such an arrangement 34 would require considerably more driveway space directly in front of the home to enable 35 cars to be driven in and out of the garage. For these reasons, Planning Division staff 36 believes thattheproposalis consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances. 37 c. The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner.Many older homes 38 in the community were built with one-car garages, which met a typical household’s needs 39 in the 1950s and 1960s. In more recent decades, however, Roseville hassupported similar 40 varianceson the premise thattwo-car garages are “reasonable”—and nearly essential— 41 improvements onmodernsingle-family properties.In this case, the original home and 42 one-car attached garage was built in the 1950s, and the tandem stallwas added to the 43 back (i.e., west side) of the garage sometime around 1980. If the existing garage were 44 PF16-008_RVBA_20160302 Page 2of 4