pf_00538 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� �J � Septem�er 3, 1969 CASE NO: APPLICANT: LOCATION: � ACTION REQUESTED: � � 538-69 Carl Anderson (See Sketch) Approva� of Variance and Side Yard Setback PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant indicates tha�r he proposes to construct an attached garage 24 feet wide which wi 11 ext,end to 6.4 feet from th�e west property I ine. The applicant further indica�`es: ",f}ie hardship and difficulty under the zoning ordinance would be to limit the: �width of the garage to 20 feet. By building a 24 foot wide garage there will be fewer difficulties and (ess hardship when parking a large aui�omobile and a pick-up camper side-by-side. A 24 foot wide garage wi I I reduce hazard and make it a safer place for parking cars and entering and exiting from them, as wel! as the storage and removal of ►awn equipment, bicycles, and other items stored in a garage. By allowing a side yard setE,ack o� 6.4 feet a 24 foot wide garage could be built that would allow for the adequate storage of 2 cars and variaus lawn equipment." 2. Y�u will note fram the sketch afi the left, that the applicanfi has a total distance of 30.4 feet from the west side of his house to his westerly property line. The construction of a 24 foot garage would obviously (eave 6.4 feet rather than tN� 10.0 feet required.in the ordinance. The problem here is obviously that the house was constructed 14.6 feet from the east property line. Had the structure been built 10 feet from the east property line, adequate space would be available to construct the 24 foot garage within the normal 10 foot side yard requirement. 3. Generaily, the houses in the neighborhood conform to the minimal 10 foot siGe yard requirement, and from th is standpoint there is some question as fio whether the proposal is appropriate. The additiona! storage space referred to cou(d be accommodated by the development of a deeper garage with perhaps a 22 foot width thereby leaving a setback of 8.4 feet rather than 6.4 feet. This represents one possible solution to the problem involving a lesse� variance. Though the property to the west is vacant, this property owner could well object to the variance on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood and �.the village as a whole. On the other hand, if the applicant can demonstrate that some phy5ical feature of the lot makes