06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«04-30J7 J hm21.2004 Pigc3«f7 feet, all sho\^ing 3 stall garages located in front of the home. Staff has noted below several issues to be considered with this proposed layout: Setbacks The plan indicates that the setbacks will be as follows: • Front: 25’ (measure from curb not edge of ROW) • Side (at garage): 6’ • Side (at house): 10* • Rear: c Abutting Hwy 12: 50 ’ o Abutting Hwt 12 B>pass: 30’ o Abuuing Old Crystal Bay Road: 35* o Abutting Wetland: 0 measuring from 35’ buffer Staff finds that these setbacks arc minimal. For example, the front yard setback should be measured from the edge of the right-of-way (or front property line) not the curb, and in cases where a sidewalk is proposed from the edge of the easement (if not included in the RO>\0- This ensures visibility along the road should large vehicles be parked in the driveway It also ensures that vehicles will not overlap into area used for snow storage. The current plan is showing approximately a 13’ front yard setback when measured from the edge of the right-of-way. Under this setbaek a large vehicle has the potential to overlap into the right-of-way by 8 ’. Staff would recommend that a revised plan incorporate a 30’ front yard srtWk measured from the edge of right-of-way and/or sidewalk easement. Also, the side setbacks proposed differ between the garage and the house The garages arc proposed to be in front of the house at a setback of 6’ to the side property line In some cases there will only be 12’ between neighboring garages. The reduced setback for the garages may interfere with the property’s ability to maintain its own drainage. A 10* side yard setback (proposed for the houses) is considered minimal for the construction of drainage swales. StafT w ould recommend that a minimum of a 10’ setback for both the garage and house be incorporated into any revised plan. The applicant should also consider tuck-under style garages in an attempt to increase setbacks and create a more usable yard. The rear yard setback proposed may also not be sufficient. For example, the rear >ard setback to Old Crystal Bay Road is 35’ where to the Highway 12 Bypass setback is only 30’. Realizing there is a significant grade change between Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 Bypass, the noise factor may cause similar problems due to the speed at which cars will be traveling Staff would suggest that an increased setback to the Highway 12 Bypass be considered due to the unknown negative effects that may occur once the bypass has finished construction. The Planning Commission may also want to consider implementation of buffer yards on all lots abutting right-of ways. This would require additional feet for rear yard setback to allow for construction of a berm and still provide room for a usable rear yard. L-