10-03-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIHUTBS OP THE PIAHHIMG C0MMISSI08 MEBTIHG OCTOBER 3# 198B ZOHI86 PILE «1342-PETERSOE C0MTI8UE0 out of. By placing the garage as he is proposing^ it would allow a space to turn around. Mr. Peterson stated that his neighbor had written a note of approval on the survey itself. From the northeast corner of the garage to the slope is approximately 14* %^ouXd allow enough room to turn around. Mr. Peterson stated that 3* would be possible. Chairman Kelley asked about placing the garage in a different location. Mr. Peterson stated that by doing so, it would cut the property in half and would not fit in with the driveway layout. Kelley said that he had a hard time with just 1* from the property line. Planning Commission member concurred. Gaffron added that the overhang would drop the drip line onto the neighboring property. Planning Commission member Cohen asked if 5* would be possible. Mr. Peterson stated that at 5* he would fall off the driveway. Gaffron stated that the angle of the garage would have to be changed. Mr. Peterson stated that could be done. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of #1342, for a side yard setback of 5*. The hardship being the contour of the lot. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1344 ROGER RODER 1099 NILLOH DRIVE SOUTH VARIAMCB PUBLIC HEARIHG 9:59 P.M. - 10:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking an accessory structure floor area variance in order to construct a 35* x 33* garage. The garage will be built behind the front line of the house, and is technically less than the 50* setback from the street. There will be storage space above the garage so a front setback variance of 14 1/2* will be necessary. In addition, the upper level would be considered as floor area because it will allow for more than 5* of headroom. Chairman Kelley asked about the size of the footprint. Gaffron responded that it was 990 s.f. Planning Commission member Cohen pointed out the use of the upper level as being storage and/or office space. Gaffron asked the applicants whether they intended to use the upper level as strictly storage, or as an office. Mr. Roder stated that it would mostly be used