06-19-1989 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

itor to-striicture otations :over on the id is 29.9%. B underlayed her area of ardcover in tie bit that t of garage, ant prefers, ardcover is ff does not een the two to construct foundation isult in the 1 accessory :otal usable 10' east and to do Option be able to : is to move back to the Loose 7 or 8 1%mmmZoning Pile #1316 August 8, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Staff would recommend that the garage dimensions be reduced to save the trees rather than grant variances for structure to structure setback. An alternative would be to relocate the garage entirely. 3. Accessory Structure Size. As noted above, if the old and the new garages share a wall, they will be considered attached and will yield approximately 2,700 s.f. of usable floor area, an excess of 1,700 s.f. over the 1,000 s.f. allowed, for a variance of 170%. Note that the existing 3 car garage, with what appears to be a dwelling space above it, comprises about 1,156 s.f. and already is oversized. The new garage, if detached, would comprise about 1,561 s.f., an excess of 56% for that new building. As of this writing, applicant has not provided substantial information regarding the need for all of this space, but has merely applied for a 990 s.f. "storage garage". Discussion - There is no question that this property has some severe site constraints which limit the realistic potential for development of additional accessory buildings. The property already contains a detached 3 car garage with a loft and what appears to be living space above it, this structure being in excess of the 1,000 s.f. floor area allowed. That garage was allowed to be built in 1976, based on code interpretations at that time which apparently considered only the footprint. Staff received a phone call from one of the neighboring property owners who was notified of this variance application, and that neighbor was concerned that the property is already overused, by virtue of the fact that there is a separate apartment over the garage and perhaps a third dwelling unit in the basement. As of this writing, staff has not been able to verify whether these excess dwelling units exist, however there is a gas line going to the garage and a room air conditioner in one of the upper windows, and we know that two plumbing fixtures were constructed in the garage when it was built, hence there is high likelyhood that this could be used as a dwelling unit. Staff Recommendation - Lacking any substantial discussion by the applicant as to the need for this oversized garage with storage space above it, and given the limited area in which to construct the building, staff would strongly suggest that the applicant consider reducing the size or the structure in order to meet the required 10' setback and still allow the trees to remain. Alternatively, it would seem that a garage could be developed to the west of the existing garage, which would eliminate the need for the gravel driveway and pavement behind the existing garage. Staff could not recommend approval of applicant's Option A, since this ultimately creates an extremely large accessory structure on a residential property with no real hardship being shown. Option A would also require verification by a structural engineer that the existing foundation to be shared would support the added structure. Notwithstanding the excess size of the structure. Options B & C may not have as great an effect on existing trees as the applicant expects, and trees could be saved by reducing the size of the structure to a degree. WSL. 1Mill 1. .yt IP K" ■ ' "•... •.* *«•mmm..r % Zonint August Page :