CCP 09-30-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I :- . . C. Planning Commission Recommendations. The Planning Commission on September 4, 1996 recommended approval of Planning Case #96-14, Variance (front yard setback - 20 feet). I Also, the Planning Commission on September 4, 1996 recommended denial of Planning Case #96-14, Variance (side yard setback - 5 feet). The recommendation for denial was based on the following findings: I I. An alternative exists to place the garage in a location that meets the standard setbacks; I 2. The severe topography that was discussed in the front yard setback variance does not affect the side yard variance. Some additional fill will be required as the garage is moved further north. So the hardship is of a minor financial nature; and I 3. The lots to the north and south have observed setbacks that appear to be 10 feet or more in width and the lot to the north especially has a very similar topographic condition, I D. Updates. The applicant provided the City with a letter dated September 18, 1996 stating I that they are in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Commission (Exhibit C-1). -- Case #96-15, Variance - Front & Side Yard Setback Thomas & Jean Fabel. 1550 Edl!ewater Avenue I A. Request, The applicant requests approval of a front and side yard variance to facilitate the remodeling of a single-car tuck-under garage into a two-car tuck-under garage (Exhibit D). The remodeled two-car tuck-under garage would extend 2.1 feet into the I required 40 foot front yard setback and 7,0 feet into the required ten foot side yard setback. I B. Background. The existing garage has a front yard setback of 43.4 feet. The proposed garage expansion would extend the garage forward 5.5 feet resulting in a setback of37.9 feet or a variance of 2.1 feet would be required. The applicant states that when the I existing eave over the garage entrance and a masonry shed and planter box alongside of but nearer the street than the garage are removed, the visual impact will be about the same I as the new garage. The applicant also states the construction will require the installation of an I beam which cannot be extended to the rear of the house due to the beams dimensional requirements. Therefore, the garage needs to come out approximately two I feet and thus the front yard variance request. The front yard variance request would also provide sufficient room to provide an outside access door to the garage. I ~ I