06-18-1990 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1539 June 13, 1990 Page 2 Discussion Applicant's intent is to place the garage within the property boundaries to enable him to sell this currently vacant house. Note that the house sold for $77,000 in 1987, indicating the relatively high value of such a limited property. Applicant's Plan #1 would attach the garage to the right side of the house, extending back from the main wall of the house 16', but no further, in order to preserve an existing window on the house. This location leaves an 8' side setback, approximately 9' setback from the neighbor's garage, and approximately a 4’ setback from the County right-of-way. The garage corner would be about 25' from the curb. With this scheme, there would be additional hardcover necessary within the County right-of-way for a backout apron, and the obvious additional hardcover in the side yard to accomodate the garage. Applicant's Plan #2 would detach the garage approximately 3' from the house, leaving a 5' side lot line setback. This would only leave a 6' setback to the neighbor's detached garage. Setback to the County right-of-way would be approximately 3', with the garage doors approximately 24' from the curbline. Applicant's intent with this Plan would be to meet all building code firewall requirements but eliminate the need to reconstruct roof lines between the house and garage. (Note that in scheme 1, the garage attachment would have left a valley where rain and snow could accumulate, hence a roof rebuild would be necessary to eliminate that valley). The scheme results in slightly more hardcover than Plan #1. Both Plans 1 and 2 leave a very limited access to the garage by necessitating a tight turning radius. Staff's conceptual sketch moves the garage slightly closer to the lake and attaches the garage, eliminating the window of concern, but yielding a slightly more functional garage entry. In any of the proposals, most of the bituminous and concrete between the house and the street would have to remain, rn order to provide a Pickup apron to allow vehicles to enter the County road traveling forward. With all the schemes, there is an opportunity to remove significant areas of concrete hardcover in order to offset the increases caused by placing the garage within the property. Strictly looking within the property boundaries, applicant's Plan II could result in a 290 s.f. net decrease, dropping from 53% to 46%. 1