Laserfiche WebLink
riu 11602 <br />lk>irttiib«r 4» <br />Fa9« 2 <br />1991 <br />nidation <br />At thair October meeting, Planning Commission recommended <br />•ppi^oval of a 760 s*f« garage to be located on the northerly 3/4 s of <br />tha slab aa poured. On a vote of 6 to 0, the Planning Commission <br />raconnandad approval for the following variancesi <br />Allowed <br />or <br />Required <br />Proposed <br />(As Revised)Variance <br />Naat 8ida Setback <br />South (Rear) Setback <br />Bardcovar, 75-250* <br />Lot Coverage <br />ly*^ <br />15* <br />25% <br />15% <br />3.3* <br />10.6* <br />46.9% <br />17.5% <br />11.7* <br />4.4* <br />21.9% <br />2.5% <br />The Planning CoBunlsslon recommended that the 8*x32* remaining <br />portion of slab be removed, as well as the 9*x9' shed. This results <br />in a decrease in 75-250* hardcover on the property from a pre-existing <br />level of 50.6% down to 46.9%. Note that when the applicant commenced <br />construction on the garage without a p-*rmit, she had not removed the <br />t*x32* portion of sVab. <br />to Oooaider <br />1.Planning Commission In their Initial review only touched <br />briefly on the issue of the use of this garage for storage <br />of masonry business equipment and materials. Does placing <br />this garage in the context of a home occupation impact the <br />VBi^iance request? No home occupation license has been <br />applied for. <br />2.In order to make use of the 32* roof trusses ordered and <br />delivered prior to approvals or permits, applicant pitched <br />the roof so that it may negatively impact the neighboring <br />properties due to runoff. If a garage is approved for this <br />site, does the roof have to be reoriented? <br />3.The building inspectors have indicated that a garage meeting <br />10* or 15* setbacks could be constructed using the existing <br />slab, as long as the extraneous portions of slab are removed <br />and the remaining perimeter is reinforced with a poured <br />underpinning. The fact that the slab was poured too close <br />to the lot line may not be a reasonable justification to <br />allow a garage to be constructed at substandard setbacks. <br />Are there legitimate hardships to allow this totally new <br />to be located 3.3* from the side lot line where a 15 <br />setback is required?