08-15-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-.S'I -<'-y Adminlitrator structure-to-atmetuf® i & Staff Motationa ting hardcover on the [)' zone and it 29.9%. wood chips underlayed %. The other area of is not hardcover in a is a little bit that (area west of garage* lich applicant prefers* i* final hardcover is L8%. Staff does not tinent between the two s. proposing to construct s the same foundation s would result in the resting an accessory area and total usable ied garage 10' east and refer not to do Option 3 will not able to Option C is to move 1 a 10* setback to the 5 he will loose 7 or 8 m s i toiling File 11 Hi August •# Ifit Page 2 of I Staff would recosuiefid that the garaga dloensions be reduced to save the trees rather than grant eariancea for structure to atructure aetbeck. An aitarnatlve would be to relocete the gafage entirely. 3.Acceaaory Structure Site. As noted above* If the old and the new garagea ahara a wall* they will be considered attached and will yield spproxieately 2*700 a.f. of usable floor area* an ••xceaa of 1*700 s.f. over the 1,000 s.f. allowed, foi a variance of 170%. Mote that the existing 3 car garage* with what appears to be a dwelling apace ebove it* coepriaea about 1,156 a.f. and already is uversisad. The new garaga* if detached, would coepiriae about 1*561 a.f., an axceas of 56i for that new building. As of this writing, applicant has not provided substantial Information regarding the need for all of this apace# but; has maraly spplio<* for s 990 s.f. •storsge garage*. Olscueeicm * There is no question that this property has soma severe eite constraints which limit the raalistic potential for developeent of additional accasscry buildings. The property already containa a detached 3 car garaga with a loft and what appears to be living apace above it, this structure being in excess of the 1,000 a.f. floor area allowed. That garage was allowed to be built in 1976, based on coda interpretations at that time which apparently considered only the footprint. Staff received a phone call fr*im on# of the neighboring property owners who was notified of this variance application, and that neighbor was concernsd that the property is already overused, by virtue of the fact that there is a aaparata apartment over the garaga and perhaps a third dwelling unit in the basement. As of this writing, 3taff has not bian able to verify whether these excess dwelling units exist* however there la a gas line going to the garage and a room air conditioner in one of the upper windows* and wo know that two plumbing fixtures ware constructed in the garage when it was built, hence there is high likelyhcK>d that this could ba used as a dwelling unit. Staff Ill'll i—M' iidsl I on ~ Lacking any substantial discussion by the applicant as to the need for this oversized garage with storage apace above it, and given the limited area in which to ronatruct the building* staff would strongly suggest that the applicant consider reducing the size of 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 v'est of the existing garsge* 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 res-lential 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 tr^*es as the applicant expects* and trees could be saved by reducing the si^e of the structure to a degree. fr- f| i;