2015-06-03_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 City records indicate that the original home on the subject property was built in 1927, and 2 Ramsey County aerial images suggest that several additions have been made over time, including 3 the most recent ones in 2005 and 2007. In total, the proposal involves a room addition on the rear 4 of the home, expansion of the attached, tuck-under garage at the front of the home, and 5 conversion of part of the existing basement into additional tuck-under garage space, with total car 6 storage space for at least 14 cars. The existing site plan, partial floor plans, and written narrative 7 detailing the proposal are included with this report as Attachment C.The applicanthas indicated 8 that he has a classic car broker business and, whileit’s not strictly related to the variance 9 application, it bears noting that a residential office space is a viable home occupation, but the 10 zoning code would not allow commercial inventory to be stored at the residential property. Mr. 11 Snell is aware of this, and his proposal is partly intended to create enough garage space to get his 12 personal vehicles and trailers indoors rather than parking them on the street. 13 City Code §1004.05A (One-Family Design Standards)limits the forward projection of front- 14 facing overhead doors of attached garages to 5 feet in front of the home. The existing one-car, 15 front-facing, tuck-under attached garage projects approximately 21 feet forward of the home, but 16 this is a legal nonconformity which, according to aerial photos, seems to have been built between 17 1953 and 1974. Current zoning regulations would allow the existing garage to be maintained and 18 rebuilt in its current configuration, but the proposed expansion of the nonconforming front- 19 facing, overhead garage door necessitates the requested variance to this part of the zoning code. 20 The intent of the code requirements that regulate the relationship of front-facing garage doors 21 with their respective dwelling spaces is to highlight the residential nature of the property and 22 downplay the garage as a feature. This is not a new idea. Roseville’s original zoning code was 23 adopted in 1959, and it relegated garages (which were typically detached from the residences at 24 that time) to the back yard—detached garages were not even allowed to stand in side yards, next 25 to the houses. Over time, garages became attached to the dwellings and were enlarged to 26 accommodate more vehicles to the point where garage doors can dominate the fronts of homes. 27 The zoning code has included this provision about garage doors, among others, to reflect the high 28 value given to aesthetic appeal and high-quality design, community and social connections, 29 walkability, and so on, as expressed throughout Imagine Roseville 2025 and the 2030 30 Comprehensive Plan. Household automobiles and residential garages are necessities of modern 31 life and, while there’s nothing inherently bad about the convenience of a forward-facing garage 32 projecting in front of a home, the convenience comes at the expense of aesthetics and visual cues 33 of a strong community as viewed from the public realm of the right-of-way. 34 City Code §1004.08B (Residential Setbacks) requires principal structures, including residential 35 dwellings and attached garages, to be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the front property line. 36 The existing attached garage encroaches approximately 10 feet into the required front yard 37 setback. Just as in the preceding paragraph, the existing garage could be maintained and replaced 38 in its present configuration without a variance, but the proposal to expand the garage are within 39 the required front yard setback necessitates the requested variance to this part of the zoning code. 40 Building setback requirements in a residential district are intended to advance a few goals: to 41 preserve useable space in front yards, reserve space for adequate light and air, to maintain some 42 uniformity in the minimum distance of homes from street frontages,and to locate accessory uses 43 beside or behind the residence on a property, to name a few. Among the homes in the area 44 surrounding the subject property, the applicant’s existing garage is much closer to the front 45 property line than any other structure, and a significant expansion of the garage in that location 46 PF15-006_RVBA_060315 Page 2 of 5