03-19-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•1 ^trtincnl Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, SuMivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To permit an alteration to c.xisliiig hardcover over the allowed 25%. I.ot Area 75-250*12,727 s.f. Allowed 1 lardcovcr 3,181 s.f.(25%)^.^f i- nxisting Hardcover 3,710 s.f. {29%)<^ ^ 2,2.0 -.f. A ) ' - Proposed Hardcover 4,902 s.f. (38%) t IP 6^ -TO Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To pennit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures. Lot Area Allowed Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 17,467 s.f. (15%) P 2,620 s.f. (17%) 2,970 s.f. (18.5%) 3.237 s.f. ^ 267 s.f. increase in lot coverage Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): To permit an encroachment into the side setback 2.85* from the side property line for construction of a 30* X 30 ’ attached garage, where a 10’ side setback is required and to permit the garage addition 21.76* from the front property line where a 30 ’ setback is required. Section 10.25, .Subdivision 6 (B): To peimit an cncro.ichmcnt into the side setback 2.64' from the side property line to pennit the addition of a second story above the existing residence within the required 10’ side setback hequired Setbacks l.R-IC Front Yard = 30' Side Yard - 10’ Discussion: Applicants have addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the existing garage location. 1 he existing garage is located only 18’ from Casco Point Road and faces the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road without the ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street as well as allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vcliicles from the applicant’s property. In the applicant's letter of request Uiey have stated there have been dozens of brake screeching near misses while backing out. The concern is the location of the proposed attached garage that would be located only 2.85' from the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. Con,«*:>iction of the house w as before the adoption of the current zoning standards, fhe site plan shows the location of the house in relation to the property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property line than the house. •2M4 G«> and loan Msqiurtfl 2617 Cisco Point Ro<a VariMcos ~ Publsc Hcinag Pi|c2orS