08-23-2000 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant has suggested that because the private street accesses County Road B2 far to the south of the property, there should not be a 30 foot setback in this area, but if required, the layout of the property improvements and neighborhood creates the justification for the requested variance. Moreover, the applicant states that both the historical location of a garage in this location, as well as the existence of another garage on the adjacent parcel help to justify the requested location. Although it is true that this parcel has no direct public street frontage, staff has interpreted the Zoning Ordinance to require a front yard setback from the private street as this represents the individual driveway access to this parcel. To assume that there would be no front yard setback would create a condition where almost all of the lot is buildable to within 10 feet of the lot lines. This would not be consistent with the City's development regulations in general or with other situation where frontage on the public street is remote. Staff has maintained the need for a "front yard" in all other cases. The frontage on the private street is the most logical for this site, and is the direction which the house faces as well. Under this interpretation, the issue is whether the conditions on the lot and /or in the neighborhood create justification for the variance. Planning staff has generally used two techniques to analyze variance requests. The first technique reviews the need for the structure and conforming options on the lot for the proposed structure. The second is how similar requests have been treated by the City in the past. With regard to the first review, it is noted that the proposal for a second, oversized accessory building is an exception to the ordinance's regular standard of one garage of not more than 1,000 square feet. Therefore, the importance of complying with the regulations for the proposed building are even more critical. In this case, staff believes that there are at least two options available to the applicant which would be more conforming than the location proposed. One option would be to locate the new detached garage in the side yard along the west side of the house. The applicant has raised a concern that this area's topography is too steep to easily accommodate the building. However, as a detached structure, topography is typically less of an issue, as evidenced by the chosen location which requires that the building be excavated into the hillside. This location does have some disadvantages in that is would violate the City's prohibition of accessory buildings which are located in front of the rear building line, necessitating a separate variance consideration. Another option, preferred by staff, is that of attaching the detached structure to the new attached garage. This would eliminate the need for the CUP for a second garage building, and it could be located in a way which meets all of the setback requirements. To accommodate this option, the garage doors would need to be oriented toward the private street instead of the "side- loaded" design now proposed. The applicant objects to this option based on the existence of the well which is in front of the new attached garage. However, staff believes that a driveway arrangement such as the one shown on the exhibit Page 43