CCP 09-30-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . ~ The applicant proposes to extend the sidewall of the garage 7.4 feet toward the east property line, leaving a setback of3 feet. As the wall is now setback 10.4 feet, a 7 foot variance is requested. A three foot wide stair now abutting the garage would also be moved to the east property line to occupy the remaining three feet. A six foot high stone retaining wall runs along the east property line and curves sharply to the west to meet the I above described shed/planter box. This curved portion is proposed to be removed and the wall extended along the edge of the relocated stairs and the property line, The steep topography, the retaining wall, the tuck-under garage and the fact that the neighboring I home to the east is rotated away from the subject property will minimize the impact of the proposed garage on the adjacent property. The 80 foot wide lot is 15 feet narrower than now required in the R-1 District so the lot width not being as wide as a standard lot I in the same district is a factor in this case. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission on September 4, I 1996 recommended approval of Planning Case #96-15, Variances (providing a 37.9 foot front yard setback and a 3.0 foot side yard setback). D, Updates. None required. I Case #96-16. Preliminary Minor Subdivision I Virllil Vinz.1268 West Amble Road A. Request. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary minor subdivision (land till swap) affecting two parcels zoned R-I Single Family Residential District (Exhibit E). B. Background, The applicant currently owns both 1268 and 1274 West Amble Road. The I applicant lives in 1268 and rents 1274 West Amble Road. The applicants request states that the purpose for the preliminary minor subdivision is the area in question contains the I garden and extended yard area for their home (1268 West Amble Road). If one owns both properties, then this should not be an issue. However, if either property were to be sold, then the resolution of this issue would appear to be appropriate. 1 The Planning Commission's and the Staffs review of this matter would indicate that this request appears to comply with the applicable requirements of the City Code. However, I the both have a minor concern over creating unusually configured parcels of property. Given, the size of the resultant parcel (40,342 square feet), the City might anticipate a I future request to split off the rear portion of this property for the construction of additional housing. The apparent lack of access and the reduced size of those potential lots in relationship to the adjacent neighborhood would be issues which would require I closer evaluation at that time. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission on September 4, I 1996 recommended approval of Planning Case #96-16, Preliminary Minor Subdivision, subject to the provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements. -. I