Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />M'vll. <br />4. <br />;iv ■. <br />On October 21, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed a <br />revised proposal for construction of a 24' x 32' (768 <br />a.f.) garage located 3.3' froin the west lot line and <br />10.5' from the south lot line, requiring side and rear <br />setback variances, a lot coverage variance, anu a <br />hardcover variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to <br />0 to reccmraend approval, based on the followinq <br />findings: <br />A.The proposed 768 s.f. detached garago replaces <br />a pre-existing !80 s.f. garage, 200 s.f. barn, and <br />80 s.f. storage shed with a single structure of <br />approximately the same square footage as the 3 <br />pre-existing buildings. <br />B.The pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 50.6%. If <br />an 8' X 32' portion of the concrete garage slab <br />which was poured without prior approvals is <br />removed, hardcover on the property would be <br />reduced to 46.^ in the 75-250' zone. <br />C.Lot coverage by structures would remain a\. the <br />pre-existing level of 17.5%. The omall lot size <br />of 0.28 acre constitutes a hardship to the <br />property. Consolidation of 3 storage bui1 ings on <br />the property into a single building will reduce <br />the visual density and clutter in the <br />neighborhood. <br />D.Locating the garage 10,5' from the soutt lot line <br />is justified from the standpoint that if the <br />garage was 18 s.f. smaller, only a 10* setback <br />would be required rather than 15' for any <br />accessory building of area 75O-1000 s.f. '’’he 3.3' <br />setback from the west lot line is justified by the <br />need to maintain the full 32' depth of the garage <br />without encroaching on the loop driveway which <br />serves the immediate neighborhood. <br />5.The revised garage proposal showed a roof peak running <br />east/west, which would discharge stormwater run-off to <br />applicant's yard rather than the neighboring property. <br />Page 2 of 9