Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />Zoning File #1629 <br />March 11, 1991 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />D. Building can’t be sold separately from the principal <br />residence on the ’property. <br />E. Any future subdivision must maintain 13.5 acres and <br />principal residence with the building, 150' setbacks from <br />building to any new lot lines, and maintain required <br />screening. <br />Building permits for the existing structure were issued in <br />the summer and fall of 1987, with a Certificate of Occupancy <br />issued in August 1989. <br />Discussion ** <br />The original plans for this tennis court building included <br />two double garages at the northerly end of the building. No <br />squash court appears on the plans originally reviewed by the <br />Council. After Resolution #2204 was adopted, the applicants <br />deleted one of the double garages and rearranged interior rooms, <br />apparently due to soil problems near the north end of the <br />building. There may have been other reasons for this change,of <br />which staff is not aware. Applicant is now proposing to <br />construct the double garage plus a squash court at the north end <br />of the building. <br />Planning Commission may recall that this tennis court <br />building was one of the major factors which lead to adoption of <br />accessory structure ordinance revisions in 1909. Those revisions <br />limited the footprint area of accessory buildings keyed to lot <br />sizSf and required specific covenants for oversized accessory <br />structures that would preserve the required lot size and <br />setbacks. <br />In staff's opinion, the location and screening of the <br />existing building have not affected the character of the <br />neighborhood. The tennis court building is barely visible from <br />Fox Street in the winter, and is almost totally screened by <br />vegetation in the summer. We have received no complaints from <br />neighboring property owners regarding the existing structure. <br />The proposed additions still more than meet the minimum <br />setback requirements for an oversized accessory structure. Of <br />course, because the tennis court building is closer to Fox Street <br />than the principal residence on the property, a location variance <br />is required. <br />Staff is concerned about soil conditions at the north end of <br />the building, and the Inspections Department would require <br />adequate soils documentation and proper foundation planning to <br />accommodate this addition if it is approved.