03-27-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

purchased the property in reliance on the representation that an accessory structure would be approved provided the setback requirements could be met. Mr. and Mrs. Mentes applied for a CUP in summer of 2001 for an accessory garage with the dimensions described above. On August 22, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001 -8- 179 essentially denying a CUP but approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing construction of 22 foot by 25 foot accessory garage to be placed 6 feet behind the existing garage at the applicant's residence at 3058 Greenbrier in Little Canada. The Council added in the Minutes of the Meeting that it would be willing to consider additional square footage if the additional garage were added to the existing attached garage. Mr. and Mrs. Mentes would not need a CUP to build an accessory structure for the size approved in that resolution. Mr. and Mrs. Mentes applied in January, 2002 for reconsideration of Resolution No. 2001 -8 -179 to allow the construction of the 1,008 square foot accessory storage garage. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002 -1 -16 instructing the Mentes that they would need to apply for an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit with formal process to be followed and requesting from City Staff "a report relative to existing accessory garages in the area." City Staff requested a Report from an outside consulting firm, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Northwest submitted a Report on February 12, 2002, which essentially came to the same conclusion and recommendation it had reached in an earlier Report dated August 13, 2001. Both Reports included a section on "Compatibility." The February 12, 2002 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Report stated: The City has reviewed similar requests with a requirement that oversized garages be built only on parcels where the size of the lot and the surrounding neighborhood results in no concerns over compatibility or crowding. The last two conditional use permits (for oversized garages) that were approved by the City were upon lots measuring .63 acres in size. The subject size measures .57 acres (24,752 square feet) in size. While this is significantly greater than the minimum 10,000 square foot area requirement imposed in the R -1 district, concern exists regarding the appropriateness of such structure within a single family neighborhood in which similarly sized accessory buildings do not exist. It is also important to note that the proposed 1,008 square foot building essentially represents a four car garage. This, in conjunction with the existing two car attached garage, is considered out of scale with the subject property and would result in an accessory storage allowance not in scale with other similar sized lots in the neighborhood. The Report concluded that: It is the opinion of our office that the proposed accessory building, in combination with the existing garage, is not in keeping with the scale and character of the neighborhood. We 2