Laserfiche WebLink
) <br />■] <br />! . <br />. k <br />o <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />miT.: <br />suRinn*: <br />nick Denson, Citv Aebainistrator <br />i.68 <br />Hank 'fuliich. Zoning Adninistrator <br />.\iirust IZ, 1976 <br />Dmcc Oarlock - 1179 Klrawood Avenue <br />VViriancc - Restorc I’xist inj’ Substandird Ai ct ssory DuildinR On <br />liOt Without A Main StnJCturc and of 'ay and ^idc Lot Line <br />ictback <br />% <br />This district is zoned LR-ID. Lot rcr|uircmcnts are 1 ricrc (4.^,560 ft.! <br />area and 141' width. Setback rcc <br />from s. de lot line. The cxistinj! <br />area and 141' width. Setback requirements are 5'i' from rip.ht of way and 10' <br />xistinj; yaraee is on a lot v/ithout a iTUiiii stnicture. <br />Tlic sitiuation on lot IS is non-con form inn, in that the i^cessory Imii lin^ <br />(jjarafie) exists without a jnain structure (Ordinance '^l.3T ). The jarav.e is <br />so badly in need of repair that the proposed rcstt'rat ion voiild (?xceed the cost <br />percenta.{»e deteminiip: t]\e buildinc to be a new st rncl«ire. In Jetermininp <br />this to lx? a new ac'cessorv buildiny, a variance v.ould lx? rc'quircd from <br />Ordinance #31.310. <br />Three setback variances would also be required for Mr. fkirlock's proposal. <br />The two proposed rigl?t of way setbacks are 26.1 ft. and 6 ft. so variances of <br />.3.9 ft. and 24 ft. would be nccessar>'^ from the 3'»* setback iv<iuirencnt. /• <br />side yard setback variance of 5.5' would 1k' necessary nxi the 10’ side y: rd <br />setback requirement. <br />This proposal is located in tiie sane block as Robert .lohnson's vari ace rev'to^t <br />at 1121 nimwood Avenue' (pronc'^al #164). loriunately, b >th nroposals are being <br />made at the same time. As I’ve alreadv noted in 'icnio /M61, property' ownersinp <br />in this area presents quite a problem in that lots 6, S .md ' arc- all in <br />single, separate ownershij). It apneatliat Mr. Tarloc^ ha;*, eliminated sene <br />the problem by purcha;^ing lots 9 and ID. Lots ti, 7 am ’ D are still imiividua!ly <br />owned. Mr. IVeiller owns lots 6, 20 and 21. ??r. Deito o\.ns lot.s 7, 17, .3'’ and <br />half of lot 37 M’* t'arl owns lots 8 and 19. <br />We should definitely consider combining lots 9, 10 and 11. <br />Although we could deny tlic request, I believe tlic proposal would be a definite <br />improvement in tlie area as the existing garage is so !>adly in need of repair. <br />We might consider reducing the width of the garage, however, so wc would <br />eliminate the visual obstruction resulting from the e'isting 6' setback from <br />Grand View Avenue. Appi-oval should be conditioned on the renovated building <br />meeting all building codes and combining of lots 10 and 11.