09-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FilE COpy 23ARDENHILLSCITYCOUNCIL - JANUARY 31, 2000 dated January 5, 2000, conditioned on the apartment not being rented without obtaining a special use permit. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. Case #00-04, Edward Kajer,-i434WesfComityRoad E, SideYardAccessory i~.tructure_Yari!m~e___- f-~ ~---- / Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a side yard setback variance 3 feet, 3 inches proposed, when 10 feet is required) for a new garage on a single-family lot zoned R-l. The applicant currently has a 399 square foot detached garage. The detached garage is currently three feet, three inches from the east property line. The applicant wished to demolish the existing garage and rebuild the detached garage in approximately the same location. The proposed garage would be 528 square feet (22 by 24 feet) which is larger than the existing garage, The setback from the side property line would remain three feet. The garage needs to be at least six feet from the house to meet the building code. The existing garage is 12 feet from the house. The proposed garage would be seven feet from the house. Due to the pie shaped lot and significant trees, the applicant would have a difficult time building on the west side of the home, The garage could be moved one foot closer to the house and still meet the building code, Several similar variances have been granted in this neighborhood including one for the neighbor to the east at 1426 County Road E. The City, in Planning Case 97-11, approved the variance for a three foot, three inch setback to the side yard setback for an accessory structure. Other variances in this neighborhood had been approved for five foot side yard setbacks. The applicant could minimize the request by reducing the garage width to a standard 22 feet and then only need a five foot variance where 40 is required. The garage could also be moved one foot closer to the house and still meet the building code. Because the house has windows facing out to the garage, the applicant preferred to not move the garage closer to the house. Staff found the configuration of the property to be unique. The parcel is not deficient in width, however, due to the pie shape, the width of the parcel at the rear of the house and garage is only approximately 75 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires properties in the R-l Zoning District to have a minimum width of95 feet at the front setback line. The pie shape ofthe subject property was not created by the applicant. Other properties in the immediate area have been granted side yard setback variances which were in the range of what the applicant was requesting. The existing garage was just as close to the property line as the proposed garage. With regard to alternative locations, the pie shape of the parcel, trees, and setback requirements would restrict a garage on the west side of the existing home. The garage could be moved back The applicant could reduce the garage width to a standard 22 feet and then only need a five foot setback where 10 feet is required, There is sufficient depth to the lot allowing the garage to be extended out the back for more storage space,