2016-09-14_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DPZA ETAILED ROPOSALAND ONING NALYSIS 1 The applicant proposes to replace the existing detached garage with anotherlargerdetached 2 garage.The site plan and written narrative detailing the proposal areincluded with this report as 3 Attachment C. 4 City Code §1004.02(Accessory Structures) would limit the total footprint of detached garages 5 and storage buildings on this property to 1,008 square feet, assuming that heightened design 6 standards are met. The primary purpose for limiting accessory storage structure area in this way 7 is to allow for adequate storage space to meet typical household needs and to ensure that a 8 residential property is clearly a principally residentialproperty. 9 The proposed garage is 1,217 square feet in area, which is about 200 square feet larger than 10 allowed by the zoning code.Theelevation drawing of proposed garage shows two overhead 11 doors; because vehicles that are driven regularly would be parked in the stalls at the south end of 12 the proposed garage, the required driveway to serve these parking spaces would essentially 13 coincide with the location of the existing driveway and garage. By contrast, the northern stalls of 14 the proposed garage are intended to store other items that do not require regular vehicular ingress 15 and egress, so no driveway is required to serve that portion of the proposed garage. Under this 16 development proposal, the overallimpervious coverage on site wouldremain within the 25% 17 limit established for shoreland properties. 18 A variance was granted in 1979 to allow the now-existing garage to be built 14 feet from the 19 front property line. Whether that garage was built closer to the front property line than approved 20 by the variance or the natural distortion in Ramsey County’s aerial photos defy accurate 21 measurements of the existing conditions, the existing detached garage appears to be about 9 feet 22 from the front property line. Because the garage built under the1979 variance would have been 23 limited to 864 square feet, a replacement structureup to that 846 square feet could be built as 24 close as 14 feet from the front property line, as approved in the variance. Conversely, any garage 25 larger than 864 square feet would need to meet the standard 30-foot setback requirement or 26 receive its own variance approval. This issue is largely moot, however, since the applicant 27 proposes to meet the required 30-foot setback. 28 The 36-foot width of thedriveway in the West Owasso Boulevard right-of-way is10 feetwider 29 than the zoning code allows, but it was formally approved as an existing non-conformity when 30 anothervariance was granted in 2001 to allow the driveway to remain in place; consideration of 31 this variance was prompted by Roseville’s reconstruction of West Owasso Boulevard.Because 32 the width of the driveway is not proposed to change, this 2001 variance remains valid. 33 VA ARIANCENALYSIS 34 Section 1009.04Cof the City Code establishes a mandate that the Variance Board make five 35 specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for approving the variance.Planning 36 Division staff has reviewed the applicationand offers the following draft findings. 37 a. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.While the proposal does 38 represent continued investment in a residential property, the dominating presence of 39 garage doors in close proximity to the front property line is inconsistent with the 40 Comprehensive Plan’s advocacy of pedestrian friendliness. 41 b. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances.The 42 proposalis inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because it exceeds by 43 PF16-024_RVBA_20160914 Page 2of 4