Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant proposes larger garage at 240 Fourth Avenue South; staff and DRC ask for size and detail clarifications
Summary
An applicant told the Design Review Committee (DRC) he wants to enlarge and re-site an existing accessory shed to create a functional garage. Staff and commissioners generally supported the concept but requested more information on footprint, height relationships, door and window designs, and site paving.
Ben McCreery, the project's applicant, told the Design Review Committee at its February meeting that he plans to enlarge an existing rear shed at 240 Fourth Avenue South and add a garage bay so the structure will be large enough to hold a car. "There is an existing shed structure on the property that's really not large enough for anything other than a shed ... it is not currently deep enough to fit a car," McCreery said during the DRC discussion.
Staff described the property as a contributing principal building with a contributing accessory structure and outlined guideline and zoning constraints. "Both the principal building and accessory structure are contributing to the district," staff said, and noted the proposed accessory footprint would grow from roughly 201 square feet to a new total of 692 square feet, with an addition of about 491 square feet. Staff asked the applicant to clarify the principal building footprint (the assessor lists 1,586 square feet) because zoning limits accessory structures to no more than 50% of the principal building footprint and guideline language recommends accessory buildings remain visually subordinate.
Commissioners generally voiced support for the concept while flagging several design details to refine. One member said the 12-foot forward move is acceptable and the proposed massing appropriately borrows elements from the house, though several commissioners asked to see more-detailed garage door and window specifications when the applicant returns. Concerns focused on maintaining a subordinate scale and reducing the amount of new paved area in the rear yard.
Staff also recommended matching proposed window patterns on the garage more closely to those on the principal building and asked for clarification about whether the new garage doors would be overhead modern doors or carriage-style doors like the existing. Commissioners reiterated that the new peak height should remain lower than the principal house peak and encouraged wood siding, corner boards and simplified detailing that relate to the main house.
Next steps: staff asked the applicant to provide clarified building footprint and principal-building square footage, full window and garage-door specifications, and a scaled site plan showing proposed paving and the final location of the accessory structure. The DRC did not take a formal vote; members offered guidance for the applicant's formal COA application.
