06-27-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File i1283 Page 2 of 2 garage probably encroached no clozer than the existing shed over the rear lot line. The original shed did extend to within 2 + - feet of the side lot line (Ebert property, review survey, Exhibit G). The new shed has been placed in line with the 30' rear of the existing garage, review Exhibits E and F, the staff and applicant's sketch that more clearly defines the location of the shed. The survey (Exhibit G) shows the shed as part of the existing garage structure. Staff received a call from an adjacent neighbor complaining that the structure was being constructed close to the lot line. The neighbor never did provide a name, just called attention to the fact that the shed was being constructed with obviously no building permit issued by the City. Staff has heard nothing from Mr. Edwards, the most affected property owner, since the notifications went out regarding the public hearing for this After the Fact variance. The building inspector has confirmed that the only structural modifications that must be made to the existing structure is that he would require additional bracing for the roof/ceiling. As applicant's addendum notes, the roof line has been extended over the existing shed with siding continued along the sides and rear. Escher had - lanned to also provide skirting for the bottom of the structure to complete the aesthetic upgrade of the structure. The applicant asks that you approve the After the Fact gpplication as proposed. Staff has attempted to explain the City's position when dealing with the replacement of existing structures. The zoning phase of the building permit review would consider this structure new and subject to all current setback standards and hardcover regulations for the zo.iing district. There is no hardcover problem as the above hardcover facts would reveal and the new shed location no longer results ir, a substandard side setback. The issue for this After the Fact review is that the Citv can not approve the encroachment over the lot line of a new structure. Staff cannot recommend approval of the proposal as presented by the applicant. Alternatives for Consideration by Planning aission 1. Recommend that the existing structure be altered so that there is a minimum of 3' mairtained by the she.,'garege from the rear lot line. Applicant will have to provide the appiopriete fire protection for the side of the structure that abuts the r,ar lot line because of the substandard setback. The City wculd be asked to approve a 7' or 70R rear setback variance. 2. To recommend against the approval of a rear setback variance because of the location of the principal structure on the property to the north and would recommend that storage shed addition to garage be constructed along the west side of the existing garage that must meet the 10' setback from the rear t,ropeity line. Applicant may olt to construct a detached shed that can be placed 5' from the rear lot line and 10 feet from the side lot line.