08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Exhibit D 3. #16-3851 PETER BLUTH, 2413 CARMAN STREET, VARIANCES, 7:18 P.M. – 7:25 P.M. Peter Bluth, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting side and rear setback variances in order to add a second story to the existing non-conforming garage to allow for storage and living space. The garage exceeds 1,000 square feet and is therefore defined as an oversized accessory structure requiring additional setbacks. The applicant also proposes to construct an addition to the home over an existing grade-level deck where a screen porch currently exists which would result in a separation of approximately nine feet from the garage where a 10-foot separation setback is required. The property is a corner lot and by definition Shoreline Drive is defined as the front. The south lot line is the rear, which requires a 30-foot setback from the existing garage. The side setback variance is requested to allow expansion of the second story over the garage 28.4 feet from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. In addition, a variance is requested to allow expansion 11.9 feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. The 10-foot code required separation between buildings is for the purpose of reducing massing and bulk on properties. The existing screen porch structure is ten feet from the nearest garage corner. However, the applicants are proposing to construct the addition in line with the west line of the home, which would result in a 9-foot setback. Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the garage constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The proximity of the house to the garage further limits options. The encroachment of a corner of the garage by one foot into the separation distance is minimal and does not appear to be impactful as a full wall encroachment from a crowing standpoint. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Staff would recommend the applicant be requested to enter into the standard Oversized Accessory Structure covenant. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Bluth, Applicant, stated he can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Thiesse asked if the applicant understands that the oversized accessory structure cannot have a bathroom and that he will be asked to sign an agreement to that effect. Bluth indicated that is correct. Schoenzeit asked if the current garage has footings. Bluth indicated it is slab on grade. Thiesse stated he cannot attach it to the house but he can go up. Thiesse asked if the screened-in porch is on posts. Bluth indicated it is and that it is a deck with a screened-in sunroom.