Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2011 04 20

Home Browse Search

Ha 11\ Fla Ills 1W2 Si • I . 0,1_1872 • I';rt: t; 11 J: ;1 1ti.I :t lids l ^ ii, PIV,u,nit., 01, \1 Ir .+n, +.un�al:utl[Is. aln I):Itc: \hut lI `? 1. '2011 (_ii cal l.out.Nide 7 19 \l;cin tiucet 1,nuisvi11c. (_) 80027 1 to \\'hoot II llaw Colic crta: \ "e arc requesting variance 4sitlt regard to the rear setback requirements lot what is Io be considered an attached g;tr ; . eJlic current structure has a breezeway connecting tlse pruiia v house to the detached two-car garage. ,1,s putt of a home addition, we would like to add a Hi udroom in place of tlic blee /cwray and add a third bay to the garage. The cunctll set back codes Wotild allow die addition of tllc 1 >recrcwway Ui the expansion of the garage. Ii( )sever. the set back code prevents both additions because the difference ill setback requires liar an attacl Led vs. a detached ,garage. As a result, •vc are requcslilig a variance in the required setback for tile attached garage and below is a detfuled description addressing the request criteria. Priors to reaching the decision to request the variance on 111e rev setback requirement. we looked at several design opLim is dial wvould meet for requirements. One design involved building an additional detached structure on rile properly. 1Ic>wwever, the only viable location for such a structure was the southwest portion of the lot. This location would Have met all city code requirclnents. 1Ecivc ei, it wvou1d have had a real ucgauvc impact on the night ring hats to the south (lot #3), southwest (lot #`?), and west (lot #1). Wt. ultimately reached die decision that attaching llie r3' gat agc• bay wwau the best oplicrii ir all involved. #1 - I,c>Is #1, #`?, ti 3 amti1 # 1 share a c•ornrncan drive with Lots #2 & #3 liaviiig [buses that lace rice real of Lots 111 & 4 1. This creates a all [tittle circumstance to take into a(coI1111 when devel(api1ig the best site plan wM1itli no impact to neighbors. Adding du third bay on to lire garage as depicted in the site plan has the least impact to neighboring lo compared to tithe' 111(11tatives. 42 - '[here are no oilier common d in our subdivision. As a result oldie common chive, die layout 01 the lots and houses creates a situation that limits solutions that accomplish the required storage space yet have lithe to uo ingract on neighboring lots. Placing the lhirc1 bay as an extension to the existing garage has no impact on the two lots behind lA>I it 1. #3 - Coals of die addition are to provide protection Iron) ad!' weat 11(4(1 an acl(litiottatl gat spare for a vehicle mid trash I >ilis. To accomplish hu111 goals in a manner with no impact to neighbors, Lite proposed site plain is a desit20 l that accomplishes such. OIher site plans were considered, but the impacts of alternative site plans on neighboring properties aue severe. One example of ; alternative plat is to build a detached garage conforming to code. but the location of detached garage would impact tlic visual appeal i o1 and view Iro1(1 neighboring properties. (— Thu e \istill1 design and location oI the house on the property were decided by the previous hotnc0wners. The 11 >(;tlioa1 oldie stricture on the property' cieales limite(l space to accomplish the *wage addition. If we had been involved in the initial Iiuilding of die structure, p(xeillial future ileecls would have most likely been takei1 into ;account.