pf_03465 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NARRATIVE PORTION OF Vk~AN'CE APPLICATION FOR 3063 \/ICTORIpCL STREE~I' I\1arch 31 2003 T "'o"l.d" jJ'jr~ "'0 j"t"lri "'11 ~...t-~ct"":,, Qje...~"i,,:.d. (.~1-a{J'" "11111'" P"op eri-v to "'J"o"'J'd.e Pl"^P""" l \IV U. l.1\.Ct vuUu. aLIa uv\".! tctvi.1V 6(,.'f.lo""V J.l, .lLJ ' 1:-' y V '-'.1 storage for my boat, seasonal car, and yard maintenance equipment. I will use wood frame construction with windows and vinyl siding to match my house. 1\11' existing attached garage is undersized, and can barely hold our 2 everyday cars. My original idea was to build an 864sft accessory building/detached garage as allowed by Rosevi11e City code. As I began to survey my lot for the best location, it became clear that due to the size, shape, and topography, only 2 potential sites existed. The garage must be located no further west than the back wall of my existing attached garage because my entire back yard slopes downward toward the northwest. rj] 4J---, SI.TE I ".,VOUld be immediately to the so.uth Ofth. e. attached gal.'age with the bac.k wall even trtJ L--J with the back wall of the attached garage, and a 16ft door facing Victoria Street. This site ~'--. \ falls within city code, but it has drawbacks. While it would allow for an 808sft garage, \ 'I the site would limit the width. There is approximately 33.5ft from the attached garage to . the south property line. This allows for a 22ft width after subtracting the 5ft property line setback and the 6ft distance required from the attached garage. SITE 1 would allow a depth of 36. 75ft coming east to a line even with the t1-ont of my house. The hardships caused by SITE I include: The above mentioned width limitation, and it's effect on the interior floorplan. Eliminating vehicular access to my backyard due to the 6ft wide 'alley' created between the 2 garages. This access is necessary to maintain my 0.5 acre wooded lot. This 6ft wide 'alley' would pose a safety concern for my family by creating a 6ft wide x 22.25ft long area that is sheltered, and not easily visible from my house or my neighbor's houses. This site would require hundreds of extra sft of hard surface driveway to reach the existing drivevvay location, effecting drainage, raising the project cost, and increasing future maintenance required. I would also likely have to pave the 'alley' area between the garages, as it would be to sheltered to grow grass. This site would provide a much less attractive appearance to the neighborhood. \Vith 2-I6ft doors facing Victoria with the attached and detached garages, the combined width of these garage doors could overpower the 42.45ft wide house. The staggered distance of the garage doors from Victoria Street could also detract from the overall appearance of the prope11y. These negative aspects, as well as looking at other nearby properties for ideas, have lead me to propose Site 2. n-----, SITE 2 is shown on my proposed plan view. The I\TW corner of this structure would be ~:-1-~ approximately 5ft south and 6.25ft east of the SE corner of my attached garage. This ~I \ would allow 8ft diagonally between the corner of the structures, enough to allow the necessary access to my backyard. This site allows for a 24ft x 26 ft garage (624sft), l. limited to the east by birch trees, and in other directions by the lot size and the necessary backyard access. There would be I-16ft door facing north, which eliminates the visual impact of 2-I6ft doors side by side facing Victoria Street. SITE 2 also eliminates most of