06-17-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Scenario Analysis: • Scenario 1. In this example, the revisions to the code do not impact this particular property owner with regard to the garage construction. Under the existing Code, however, if a garage is larger than 1,000 square feet, no other accessory buildings would be allowed. In this case, not having a shed could pose a hardship, in that the lot could be quite deep. In addition, with a back yard possibly exceeding half an acre, the impact of a shed would be inconsequential. With the proposed revision to the Code, this property owner would be able to have a shed, so long as it did not exceed 200 square feet, because the new combined maximum square-footage for accessory buildings would be 1,400 square feet. On a 43,560 square foot lot, 1,400 square feet of accessory space amounts to a minimal 3 percent of the lot area. In comparison, a 1,200 square foot garage (allowed by a CUP) on the minimum-sized 11,000 square-foot lot covers more than ten percent of the lot and would quite possibly dwarf the home, which would not be in keeping with the character of the community. Scenario 2. • In this example, the minimum-sized lot supports a 35-foot by 30-foot house (foundation area equal to 1,050 square feet) and a 660 square foot garage. The owner would like to add 260 square feet to the garage, bringing the total proposed area to 920 square feet. As the Code exists currently, this could not be done without a CUP. As long as the area of the proposed garage (and existing shed) would not occupy twenty percent of the rear yard, the revised Code would allow a garage of this size. Since there is no provision limiting the combined accessory building area to a certain percentage of the lot, the combined area of 1,136 square feet would be allowed. Scenario 3. The property owner at this location would like to add 464 square feet to her existing 800 square-foot garage. Her lot is narrow and is the minimum size allowable. Under the existing regulations, this addition would be possible with a CUP, although may not be approved due to the disproportion between the area of the garage (1,264) and the area of the home (1,050). While the revision would caution against approving this garage due to its size relative to the house, because the garage exceeds twenty percent of the backyard, it cannot be approved. Under the old system, twenty-five percent rear yard • Page 10