Laserfiche WebLink
a)The proposed 768 s.f. detached garage replaces a pre­ <br />existing 480 s.f. garage, 200 s.f. barn and 80 s.f. <br />storage shed with a single structure of approximately <br />the same square footage as the three pre-existing <br />buildings. Applicant has agreed to remove the three <br />smaller buildings in exchange for the new detached <br />garage. <br />The pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 50.6%. If an <br />8'x32’ portion of the concrete garage slab which was <br />poured without prior approvals is removed, hardcover on <br />the property will be reduced to 46.9% in the 75-250' <br />zone. <br />c)Lot coverage by structures will remain at the pre­ <br />existing level of 17.5%. The small lot size <br />constitutes a hardship to the property. Consolidation <br />of three storage buildings on the property into a <br />single building will reduce the visual density and <br />clutter in the neighborhood. <br />Locating the garage 10.5 frc.n the south lot line is <br />justified from the standpoint that if the garage was 18 <br />s.f. smaller, only a 10' setback would be rteq’Hred. <br />The 3.3' setback from the west lot line is justified by <br />the need to maintain the full 32' depth of the garage <br />without encroaching on the loop driveway which serves <br />the immediate neighborhood. <br />4.The revised garage proposal shewed a roof peak running east- <br />west, which would discharge storm water runoff to <br />applicant's yard rather than the neighboring property. <br />5.After the Planning Commission meeting, applicant proceeded <br />to construct a garage without final Council approval or the <br />necessary building permit. During that construction, the <br />roof line was reversed so that runoff will be directed <br />towards the neighboring property which is only 3' from the <br />garage wall and less than 2' from the roof overhang. <br />Page 2 of 7