Question About Structure and Code for Detached Garage

[ericlar80]

My city has a code that does not allow a detached structure to be more than 30% the main property size. You are, however, allowed to put more than 1 structure up so long as they have a minimum of 6' between them. So this got me thinking about what this could look like.

Would I be able to have (for example) a garage that is 30 wide x 26 deep, and a workshop that is 30 wide x 20 deep to get 1380 sqft, and have a singular roof to help give the appearance as 1 unit? I'm sure I could find a way to dress up the gap section between them to store stuff, etc, since it would be rain covered. The two structures would have separate foundations, and no commonly shared space between them (on paper at least). Would this pass muster with local codes?

I am thinking about asking for a variance since a lot of people have 1200 sqft shops in my neighborhood from before this became a law since the lots are much larger than average for this area. I would rather just make it a simple 1200 sqft, but the city will seemingly only allow 800 for a single structure.

 

[matt_i]

Other than that they get to double tap you for 2 permits it seems like it could work. Build the connector roof as part of the 2nd build but prepare the structure on the first to receive it. Its a little directionally backwards as you'd have to cut into a good section of roof thus wasting some of the materials, but put the sheathing on with torx drive screws and it should come apart quite quickly. There is going to be some waste in siding having to build 8 sides instead of 4 (really the two adjacent sides is the only major difference)

If you were assured that it would work you could buy enough siding and roofing materials for both builds in a single purchase to avoid having to deal with the slight color-wander that happens over time in different batches of the same materials.

 

[MushCreek]

Just make sure that they know what you're going to do, and they are OK with it. Nothing worse than getting deep into a build only to find out they won't allow it. Some of these rules are dumb. I have a friend who had a run-down house (shack) on a tiny inner city lot. They wouldn't let him tear it down and build a new one. So he built half a new house, tore down the old structure, and built another half of a new house. When it was all said and done, he had replaced the shack with a new house, just like he wanted all along, and they were OK with it! He did make sure it would fly before he started, though.

 

[joes99]

I went the variance route to build larger than the 650 sq ft they allow. It took a couple months but went through without any obstructions. I also got approved to enter the rear setback at the same time.

 

[jbwilkins]

If you're thinking you're going to do an 'end run' around the local requirements, be prepared to be shot down.....

Possibly, if you pull one permit, then the next one a few months after the first structure is complete they may 'realize' what you're actually trying to do and shoot you down.....

You're probably better to try to get a variance for a single structure from the get go.....citing the other structures that are this size in the neighborhood....

 

[bczygan]

Attached solves it all.

Bill

 

[driftpin]

Building or Planning & Zoning dept's should be asked this, bring a sealed survey (best) or whatever you have if you don't have a sealed survey, with the dimensions for the sheds/garages 'called-out', along with the separation, proposed structure plot coverage (each) and setbacks also. It's a plot plan, and will give them something to be able to tell you if your proposal is feasible. Some elevations would be good, and a finish schedule. What you're looking to do is to find out if the design is tentatively going to be feasible. Once you find out, then submit whatever detailed plans you are required to do.

I worked at a jurisdiction which was very stingy with variances. They were also expensive, and you had to pay a separate fee for each. The 'after the fact' application fee (asking forgiveness for something already built), non-conforming, was $1050. Getting permission once you've identified what your intentions are should go smoothly once your conceptual site plan has passed muster.

 

[spudley]

So they restrict the size of one building but let you fill up your lot with multiple bldgs? Hmmm...perfectly logical.

I had to get a variance for my garage build because I wanted to utilize the attic space with a dormer on a 12/12 pitch roof, which was designed to match the house.

My county overlords do not allow two story garages, which is what they consider a dormered attic to be, even though I counted 30 such bldgs within 3 miles of my project. They do however, allow 18' high sidewalls with any pitch roof as long as the max height is less than thirty five feet.
More perfect logic.

Anyway six months and four highly official mtgs later, I received the variance. They final approval came after six commissioners showed up at the property at 8:00 AM for a look see.

Nothing but a huge money grab, but I'd spend the time and money and get the variance.

Sorry for the hijack...

 

[ericlar80]

Variances seem unlikely when I read their stance on the matter. From the building code (in case anyone is interested):

Variances: A request for a variance is to relieve a property owner from an inability to make reasonable use of his or her property in the manner, and for the purpose, which other property of like character, and in the same vicinity and zone, can be used. A variance will not be granted which confers a special privilege inconsistent, with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. All four of the following standards for a variance must be met:

(1) There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property with regard to size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings which do not apply generally to comparable properties in the same vicinity and zone classification. You must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist on the property itself, such as:

• Uniqueness in size, shape, etc.
• That topography is the cause of a particular hardship.
• That the location is of a special nature.
• That there is a hardship unique to the property itself, and not a personal problem of the applicant.

(2) Granting the requested variance will not confer a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

(3) Strict application of the zoning regulations as they apply to the subject property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations, provided the hardship is not self-imposed.

(4) Granting of the requested variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, nor to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of neighboring properties.

 

[CraigStu]

I agree, I'd get the variance or live w/ the two buildings. My scrap w/ the county was a much smaller scale but they won. I had built a small deck w/o permit. Some a--hole turned me in so the inspectors came out. The deck construction was fine but we lived near the water and one could only have a % of total property covered w/ non-permeable surface. Gravel had recently been labelled non-permeable. SO the one year old $400 of gravel next to the garage where we parked our outboard boat on trailer had to go. Cost a lot more than $400 to do that and they inspected it after the gravel was removed to be sure we didn't just put a thin layer of topsoil over it to hide it from them. They inspected again when all was done to be sure we sloped the topsoil correctly. In addition to all the above hassle, I had to take a vacation day off work for each inspection because they couldn't narrow down when they would show up.

 

[ericlar80]

If you're thinking you're going to do an 'end run' around the local requirements, be prepared to be shot down.....

Possibly, if you pull one permit, then the next one a few months after the first structure is complete they may 'realize' what you're actually trying to do and shoot you down.....

You're probably better to try to get a variance for a single structure from the get go.....citing the other structures that are this size in the neighborhood....

They are very clear that you can add as many buildings as you want, so long as they don’t take up more than 40% of your yard, each building is less than 30% of the main structure, and you fit within all the different setbacks. I think most properties would only accommodate a single building on the lot given the typical lot size, and they know that...

On the variance, they charge a fee that varies between $2700-3600, depending on how much work it causes for them. The lady I talked to seemed to be a little snooty about the possibility of a variance for a larger building, even though I had provided a list of properties in my neighborhood that had larger-than-code detached structures.

 

[ericlar80]

Just to be clear, I have no intention of building outside of the building code. I plan to pull permits, etc. I’m really just asking whether two structures can share a common roof, despite being 6’ apart and having different foundations. Is that technically 2 structures, or would they still count them as 1?

 

[firebirdparts]

It's the other way around here. The roof makes the structures "attached" to each other.

 

[jetnow1]

If a breezeway makes a garage attached I would think a common roof would. You might find that building two buildings first legally, then applying for a variance to put a breezeway between them to attach them would be an easier sell for a variance. I do not know what you have for building height restrictions but that might make your one roof plan a non starter also, depending on roof pitch. California is a big state with lots of variation in weather so what makes sense for roofing could vary a lot.

 

[spudley]

On the variance, they charge a fee that varies between $2700-3600, depending on how much work it causes for them.

Ouch, I thought my $400 was highway robbery.

Could you attach the bldg? Often restrictions are more relaxed with that approach.

 

[spudley]

Gravel had recently been labelled non-permeable.

More insanity. When I pointed out my gravel driveway is dry 5 minutes after a 2" rainfall, the Zoning guy said they consider gravel non-permeable because I might redo it with concrete or blacktop.
I just walked out the door on that response.

 

[TractorJeff]

It's the other way around here. The roof makes the structures "attached" to each other.

Yeah, when the zoning airplane flies over all they will photograph is a "One Roof" structure!
They will be on you like Fly on S!

 

[Stuart in MN]

I'd confirm the language of the city code...they may well allow more than one structure, but I would be surprised if each one can be up to 30% of the total square footage. I suspect the 30% applies to all the structures put together, otherwise anyone would be able to fill up every square foot of their lot with sheds.

 

[ddurrett896]

My county is 500sqft or 20% of main home, whatever is larger. Most max out at 500 sqft.

The solution is to attached. Just built 1,000 sqft no questions asked. Plus, that makes the main structure bigger so when you do build a detached and restricted to 30%, you have a larger max.

If you go the attached roof method, I know someone that made it part of the house by making the breezeway connection roof insulated and conditioned.

 

[kmacht]

If they share a common roof it will most likely be considered one structure with the size of the roof being the square footage they compare it to the size of your house.

 

[James-W]

I don't think one roof for the two buildings is even feasible. What I mean is, if each building is 30 ft wide and there is 6 feet in between them, then what will the roof look like? Are you going to have trusses made up that are at least 66 ft long? If you want an overhang they will be even longer. I guess maybe I don't understand how this would work and I am missing something. It would help if I had a drawing to look at. Trying to visualize a single roof that covers two different buildings spaced 6 ft apart is not working for me.

 

[Yankeefarmer]

Lots of speculation in this thread. Find out who the zoning enforcement officer is in your jurisdiction, and go meet him/ her and ask your questions. That’s all that will matter.

 

[MrSurly]

I don't think one roof for the two buildings is even feasible. What I mean is, if each building is 30 ft wide and there is 6 feet in between them, then what will the roof look like? Are you going to have trusses made up that are at least 66 ft long? If you want an overhang they will be even longer. I guess maybe I don't understand how this would work and I am missing something. It would help if I had a drawing to look at. Trying to visualize a single roof that covers two different buildings spaced 6 ft apart is not working for me.

You are picturing eave to eave....he's suggesting gable to gable.

(I think)

 

[Leaflessshadetree]

Only your AHJ can say for sure, and best to get it on file.
My sisters detached garage became attached because the new assessor noticed a fence attached to both. We put a post at the garage end of that section (against but not attached to the garage). The assessor came out and verified it (made sure there were no fasteners into the garage).
This was in an area with very few local rules or codes.

 

[u2slow]

My city has a code that does not allow a detached structure to be more than 30% the main property size. You are, however, allowed to put more than 1 structure up so long as they have a minimum of 6' between them.
....
I am thinking about asking for a variance since a lot of people have 1200 sqft shops in my neighborhood from before this became a law since the lots are much larger than average for this area. I would rather just make it a simple 1200 sqft, but the city will seemingly only allow 800 for a single structure.

I kind of had to go the other way.... I have roof and carport far exceeding the maximum 753sqft I was allowed to enclose. (Only one structure allowed too.) Basically its a 3-bay building with only the center 'stall' enclosed. The catch was I had to build it all in one shot to get the height I wanted.

The bylaws governing detached building size were linked to lot size. Bigger shops were on bigger lots, (or farms) or had been grandfathered.

Variance was something I didn't want to tackle. It brings unnecessary attention and scrutiny to your build. If something 'unusual' gets built that technically meets all the rules... there's little anyone can do about it.

I might be more inclined to build the one shop legit (as phase 1 of 3). Then mirror it later, but as a carport or pole barn. Once the neighbourhood becomes accustomed to the 2nd structure and roofline, then begin closing it in. Connect the structures even further down the road.

EDIT: A fence making two structures attached? Wow. Here, a breezeway (even enclosed and heated) is not considered enough to make two structures attached. Too many exploits - now there has to be adjoining rooms to make it qualify.

 

[James-W]

You are picturing eave to eave....he's suggesting gable to gable.

(I think)

You may be right, it is hard to tell from his description. Either way though, he says he wants to fix up the space between the two buildings for storage. With one continuous roof and storage in the middle, if I were the building inspector, I would have to consider it to be one building. But I am not the building inspector so what I think is of no consequence.

 

[ddawg16]

eric....what part of Cali?

I'm near LA....but in the county. I was able to build right up to the property line....as long as it 'was a garage'.

If they ask you what it's for....it's 'just a garage'.

A trip to your local building and safety is your first step. Have a sketch of your existing property and what you would like to do

 

[ericlar80]

eric....what part of Cali?

I'm near LA....but in the county. I was able to build right up to the property line....as long as it 'was a garage'.

If they ask you what it's for....it's 'just a garage'.

A trip to your local building and safety is your first step. Have a sketch of your existing property and what you would like to do

I’m located in Simi Valley. They have their own, specific building codes whereas some other cities in Ventura County just follow the county codes which are less restrictive.

I am talking about building gable end to gable end. They don’t seem to have restrictions on fences attaching buildings, or anything like that. It just seems to me that the roof being connected would be a lot more appealing because the gap could look like an entryway from the distance and perspective most people would see it.

A lot of people are suspicious of the multiple buildings allowed, but I’m not sure what to tell them. The city is very clear on that notion. I think people aren’t considering that most houses in the area sit on 6-8k sqft of land, so the limitations imposed on square footage, gaps between, allowable yard coverage %, and setbacks are significant enough that many people would be lucky to even build anything.

 

[ard]

OP. Why not make it an attached garage?

 

[ericlar80]

OP. Why not make it an attached garage?

Primarily I don’t want to disturb the family if working late at night, and the best place to add it would end up blocking vehicle access to the backyard to store my trailer and maybe someday an RV.

 

[ddawg16]

I’m located in Simi Valley. They have their own, specific building codes whereas some other cities in Ventura County just follow the county codes which are less restrictive.

I am talking about building gable end to gable end. They don’t seem to have restrictions on fences attaching buildings, or anything like that. It just seems to me that the roof being connected would be a lot more appealing because the gap could look like an entryway from the distance and perspective most people would see it.

A lot of people are suspicious of the multiple buildings allowed, but I’m not sure what to tell them. The city is very clear on that notion. I think people aren’t considering that most houses in the area sit on 6-8k sqft of land, so the limitations imposed on square footage, gaps between, allowable yard coverage %, and setbacks are significant enough that many people would be lucky to even build anything.

Isn't that LA City?

You still want to go have a chat with the city planner at building and safety. I think you will be surprised at how helpful they will be.

Send me a PM with your email address and I'll send you the LA County building code reference. Good chance LA City is much the same.