05-04-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I1 ) f ’ Zoning File #1139 April 28, 1987 Page 2 of 4 Issue I - Attachment of Structures Reading through Subdivision 12, the definitions Section 10.02, and the remainder of the Zoning Code, there is absolutely no direction as to whether this type of attachment is sufficient to allow the two structures to be considered "attached" for any or all purposes. Building Inspector, Tom Jacobs, notes that the Building Code does not set a minimum distance between buildings, but does require various types of firewalls between them depending on the actual separation distance. He also suggests that in order to attach structures solely through a roof connection, the roof connection should be at least 36" in width, and must serve a purpose, i.e. in this case creates a covered walkway between two access doors. Tom feels that from a Building Code standpoint, the roof connection proposed does constitute attaching the structures. Prom a zoning standpoint, staff is uncomfortable with this type of attachment in relation to Subdivision 12, only because the intent of that section is not totally clear. We have always felt that the 10' structure- to-structure setback standard was for emergency access purposes, but does it also serve an aesthetic purpose? Is that why it has an exception built- in, i.e. exempting "integral parts of the principal structure" from the requirement? What is the definition of an "integral part of the principal building"? Staff's main concern is that we do not want to set a precedent that would result in frivolous connections between buildings to get around the 10' setback requirement. Is Planning Commission comfortable with the current proposal? Does Planning Commission wish to consider a future zoning amendment that better defines "attachment" of structures, and/or better defines the purpose of Subdivision 12? If Planning Commission is comfortable with the method of attachment, staff would request that Planning Commission add'ess what types of attachment might not be suitable. If Planning Commission is uncomfortable with the method of attachment because it in effect is "getting around the Code requirement", then are there any hardships or unusual circumstances about this case that suggest a structure-to-structure setback variance is appropriate? Issue II - Side Setback Note that the garage as it exists is 6.7' from the lot line. It was constructed a few years ago to replace a previous garage. At that time, staff did not require a survey since the property owners had agreed to where they thought the lot line was located and the proposed garage was 10' from that line. If the garage is considered as being attached, the the principal structure becomes substandard in side setback and technically a variance is required. If the garage is not attached, then perhaps an after-the-fact variance is appropriate to grant. . . In either case, the effect on the neighboring property is negligible because the garage is there and has been there. Note that under current policy, we would require a survey to construct a detached garage, avoiding the situation encountered with this application. 7