10-12-1992 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1755 September 16, 1992 Page 2 Applicant then proceeded to remove the garage without obtaining a demolition permit, and constructed the shed without a building permit. Please review his letter of request. Issues to Address 1. Is there some other more appropriate location for the shed than the constructed location? 2. Is there sufficient hardship/justification for granting the setback variances and hardcover variances for the shed? 3. Does this shed fall into the definition of a "garage" that would be allowed under the lot coverage ordinance? (Recall that up to 1,500 s.f. lot coverage is allowed for any property for the house and garage.) 4. Given that gravel around the old garage will be removed leaving a gravel parking area, is there any additional hardcover that could be removed? 5. Knowing that a tag is being issued to the applicant for doing vork without permits after being told those permits were necessary, is there any reason to not require after-the-fact fees for the building and demolition permits as well as the zoning application? 6. The Building Department notes that a 10'xl4' shed is subject to building code requirements to be attached to the ground in a manner acceptable to the Building Inspector. Discussion Only the applicant can explain his reasons for proceeding without tie necessary approvals. The issue before Planning Commisr>ion is whether *.h 5 proposed shed is in an appropriate location, or if there is a bv^t location, or if no shed should be allowed. Certainly, removal of the non conforming garage could be considered an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood. The location of the new shed and its incongruity with the code requirements for placement of such structures begs the question of finding a better location. Such location may not exist on the property, which is only about 65' deep and averaging 45* wide. Few smaller develc^^ed building sites exist in the City.