05-07-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eyler PC Report May 7, 2003 Page 2 As stated on the previous page, the proposed request fully complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood has many large lots of this same size so the oversized garage would not appear too large for the lot. The garage would not depreciate the are and in fact would bring added value to the property and would have a positive impact to the tax base. While many homes in the area still have the original, small garages, a growing number of properties in the area are making similar improvements. As for demonstrated need for such a use, the Eylers’ letter expresses in great detail their need. Code Inconsistency Subdivision 6 of Section 1106.04 lists the conditions under which a conditional use permit can be issued. These are as follows: a. The accessory building must conform with Section 1103.06 and subdivision 1106.03(l) of this Title. b. The combined square footage of all accessory buildings on one (1) lot cannot exceed one thousand four hundred (1,400) square feet. c. The building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. d. The width of the building cannot exceed thirty-five feet (35'). e. The building shall be a permanent structure. f. Should the use for which the permit was granted be changed, the permit shall be subject to reconsideration, revocation or other action regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title. Item D stipulates that the garage not exceed 35 feet in width. Our assumption is that the width limitation was put in place to prevent an overly-wide garage fronting the street. In fact, until just recently, the Code contained a provision which limited the number of stalls at three. With the width limitation, the Commission felt that there was not reason to further regulate the number of stalls. (Ord 664, adopted in 2000.) The Commission has interpreted that a garage more than 35 feet DEEP is however acceptable. The attached site plan shows the garages facing the street. If the Eylers would agree to rotate the garages 90 degrees so that the garage doors faced south, the Code provision would then be satisfied. I have asked the City Attorney if the CUP could be granted in spite of the inconsistency, and his response was “No”, the conditions articulated in the Code are conditions that need to be satisfied in order to grant the CUP. The only way to vary from the conditions would be to apply for and be granted a variance, provided there was sufficient hardship to warrant such an approval.