HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5598 Staff AnalysisSeptember 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z-5598
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNERZAPPLICANT:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location
Ellery Gay, Jr. - Conditional
Use Permit
4400 South Lookout
Ellery Gay, Jr.
Permission to remodel an existing
garage building for purposes of
creating an accessory dwelling for
a family member and a secondary
proposal to allow the construction
of a new two car garage with a
covered walkway attachment to the
residence.
The subject site is located in the Pulaski Heights area at
the corner of North Ash Street and South Lookout.
2. Comoatibility with Neighborhood
The application involves a site which is somewhat larger
e than the conventional lot in this neighborhood. All sides
of the lot are in excess of 100 feet. The location of the
lot on a hillside provides some visual separation from its
r neighbors on the north and to the west is another large home
on a large site. Many of the homes in this neighborhood
have structures of similar nature on their rear or sideyard
areas. It is not unusual to see garage apartments or
accessory buildings in this part of the city.
3. on -Site Drives and Parkin
The applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway with
some modification to accommodate a new garage, somewhat to
the south of the current structure.
4. Screening and Buffers
This is not applicable.
5. City Engineer Comments
There are none to be reported.
1
September 22, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19 Continued FILE NO.: Z-5598
6. Utility Comrments
There are none to be reported as of this writing.
7. Analysis
The staff review of this proposal reflects a single issue
for resolution by the Commission that being the attachment
of the new garage to the principal dwelling on the site.
This creates a continuous structural tie between the old
garage, the new garage and house. Since this creates a
single principal structure on the lot, they are faced with
two questions. First, does the canopy over the sidewalk
create a structural tie which creates a single building? If
so, does the new accessory dwelling then comply with the
Ordinance since it is intended by ordinance that it be a
detached structure?
Secondly, there are several setback issues attendant to the
creation of a single large structure on the lot. The staff
view is the tie between the new garage is nothing more than
an open canopy with no closure on the sides and a sidewalk
at grade; therefore, this is not a structural tie. The
staff at this time is working with the Plans Committee to
draft language for the Zoning Ordinance amendment package
for this year. This amendment eliminates many of the minor
ties as structural ties and would avoid the kinds of issues
indicated in this case.
8. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the application for the
creation of an accessory dwelling within the existing garage
structure. Furthermore, the second phase of the development
as a new garage be approved with any structural tie to the
principal dwelling being nothing more than a weather cover
over a sidewalk.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 3, 1992)
The applicant was present. He offered several comments in
support of his application. The Committee discussed the issues
briefly with little concern expressed about the structural tie
between two buildings. The Committee forwarded this item onto
the full Commission for final resolution.
2
September 22, 1992
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 19(continued)---FILE NO.: Z-5598
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors
present. Richard Wood of the Planning staff offered an
explanation of the project and a recommendation of approval. He
explained that approval would also require a waiver of setback
requirements since the new garage/apartment would be connected to
the house by a covered breezeway, thus making it subject to
principal structure setback requirements.
Commissioner Oleson then asked if the breezeway would be enclosed
on the sides. Mr. Wood stated that it would not.
As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as
submitted with a waiver of setback requirements. The vote was
9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.
3