2003_0602_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5.7 Staff analysis of undue hardship factors is as follows: A. Th a property in question cannot be put to n reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; The Bentfield lot is narrow and offers no ability to construct a two stall wide garage adjacent the hone. Detaching the garage from the home and placing it in the rear yard affords proper design, although position flexibility is limited given the (house) distance from the rear property line, existing side (east) stoop /step accessing the home, and the curve necessary to provide access via a driveway into the new detached accessory building (garage). Given the current site conditions, any modification to the home, attached garage, or driveway, would require a lot coverage variance and possibly a setback variance. The Community Development Staff has reviewed the existing (immediate) site conditions, adjacent property situations, and the submitted proposal to determine whether there is a reasonable alternative/solution that would alleviate the need for one or more of the requested variances. Based on our review of the existing situation at the Bentfield parcel, Staff has concluded that there currently is not adequate distance between the side entry stoop and edge of driveway (10 feet) to properly or reasonably maneuver a vehicle. The situation becomes more complicated with a detached rear yard accessory building, even when adding three feet making the distance 13 feet from the stoop to the edge of the driveway. As for the proposed size of the detached accessory building (728) feet, Section 1004.01A4 l imits the size of an accessory building (perrnitted) to 864 square feet, which is premised on a 24 foot by 36 foot structure. The rear yard area calculation provided in Section 1004.01 A3 is just that a calculation that does not take into account the nominal sizes (even lengths) necessary to reasonably construct structures. The Bcntfield parcel is only 60 feet pride creating unique and challenging limitations to any proposal contemplated of the parcel. Staff has concluded that the proposed detached accessory building size (728 sq. ft.), 8 square feet over that allowed by the City Code, its location in the northeast corner of the parcel (three feet from the east property line and five feet from the north property line) is consistent with other detached building on adjacent parcels, and is a practical and reasonable solution to meet his families needs. Based on our analysis of the situation Staff has determined that the property can be made more livable and put to a reasonable and practical use under the if variances are granted. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The Bentfield parcel is much smaller and 25 feet narrower than the standard tot offered under the current City Code, which also means that the parcel has far less size than that of a standard parcel. In the case of the Bentfield parcel, the lot size of 8,040 square feet is 2,960 square feet less that the minimum lot size required by the City Code. Given this di lemma, it is difficult for existing smaller parcels to expand and/or update without running'int Code issued. The Bentfield home was constructed prior to the Code changing limiting residential parcels to 30% impervious coverage. And while City Staff PF3472 - RCA 06/02/03 - Page 4 of 6