11-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[arage near the • is proposed to Kavarre Avenue im showing where >erty. outh end of the ual expenses in walks, a flower place the new ►cation of major age of the sire anywhere other aching a garage, etback variances, e prohibitive and jver zone where • review of the lot removed in : will be right sore driveway ► service. e are no houses I right-of-way. in front yards red by staff i» no fences or lots shall be riangular area b lines of t%»o line, thence :her curb line. It.:-;'. V - k' I 7:] m h- Zoning File #1337 September 29, 1988 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit G notes the location of curb lines for Crystal Place and Navarre Avenue and the triangular space that is allowed no obstructions. It appears that the proposed garage would not not cause a visibility problem for this intersection. 6.City records do not indicate whether the sewer connection was made on the sewer stub on Lot 9 at Crystal Place or on Lot 10 at Crystal Place. Applicant should verify that the sewer connection used the easterly stub, since if the westerly stub was used, the garage would appear to be over that private sewer line, making future repairs problematic. Discussion - Given the tenor of contemporary zoning codes for the LR-lC district, approval of a garage in the proposed location would be quite unusual, unless this was a lakeshore lot, in which case it would be quite normal. In a case such as this. Planning Commission must carefully weigh the hardships noted by the applicant against the potential visual effect such a structure will have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It would be unusual for the Planning Commission to consider the "extremely high costs of site grading" as a legitimate hardship, although applicant certainly may feel thai: the grading and potential need to remove existing amenities is not reasonable. Also, Planning Commission must consider whether placement of a garage in the proposed location would decrease the light, air, and open space in the neighborhood. Certainly what now appears to be a leurge park-like lawn area will be visually affected by a garage structure. It is not clear to staff whether applicant definitely proposes to remove the existing garage if the proposed garage is constructed. If that garage is removed, does that help justify the new proposed garage location? Finally, please consider whether the statements of hardship shown by the applicant are hardships created by the property owner rather than hardships inherent with the property. Consider whether a new garage located say 5* from the south lot line in place of the existing garage, would be more appropriate. It - '4 t’- '.V. .i -3 Zoning File September Page 4 of 4 Staff Recoai If the reasons for Planning C< staff's opi findings oi precedent. ■■'ll