6.2. SR 12-16-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to City Council December 16, 2002 Page 2 Existine Conditions The property is located in Brentwood Addition which is zoned Rla with a minimum lot size of 2 ~ acres. However, the subdivision was platted in 1980, prior to the Rla zoning and this property is only 1.3 acres in size. About two thirds of the property is heavily wooded and approximately one-third of the eastern side is cleared which contains the existing home, well, septic field and retaining walls. The property is a corner lot, which has two front property lines. Because of heavy vegetation, the house and the proposed location of the garage would not be visible from any neighboring homes. The terrain of the property slopes down from the house to the west. There is a considerable amount of grade change (approximately 6-8 feet) from the house to where a garage could be built without a variance. Overview The applicant purchased the home in its existing condition about two years ago. The reasons he would like to construct the garage within the two front yard setbacks are to minimize tree loss and also to have easy access from his house. The garage will be used to store belongings out of sight to help maintain curb appeal. The ordinance allows up to 2,500 square feet of accessory building area. The applicant is proposing an additional 840 square feet of space for a total of 1,416 square feet. The applicant, due to his physical constraints, desires having the proposed garage to be at the same level as the existing garage for ease of access and use. The applicant is making conscious efforts to save existing trees as well as to make his quality of life easier. Skewing the garage, as shown in the applicant's proposal, would minimize the amount of fill needed to build up the driveway to the garage. Encroaching into either setback, as shown in the applicant's proposal, will not be visually noticeable as there is no visible relationship to neighboring buildings. Placing the garage as shown in Alternate Option A will still require a variance and again would not be visually noticeable. With the applicant's proposal, sight lines for vehicular traffic will not be impeded. Placing the garage on the other side of the house will also require a variance. At the November 26, 2002 meeting, the Board of Adjustments stated findings for denial of the variance as "conditions of the criteria are not met, especially item three." Item three states: S:~PL2kNNING\Case Files\V 02-08 Pertl\V02-08 CC.DOC