pf_00538 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

0 � J � �eptemder 3, 1969 CASE NO: APPLILANT: LOCAT ION: 538-69 Carl Anderson (See Skstch) � �ACTIU�1 REQUESTtD: ,Approval of Vari�nce and Side Yard Setbock PLANNING GONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant indiccates that he proposes to construct an attac�ed garage 24 feet wide whic� will extend to 6.4 f'eet from the west property line. The applicant further indicates: "The hardship and difficulty under the zoning ordinance would be to fimit the width of the garage to 20 feet. By building a 24 foot wide garage there will be fewer difficulties and less hardship when parking a large automobile and a pick�up carriper side-by-side. A 24 foot wide garage will reduce hazara and rnake it a safer place for parking cars and entering and exiting from them, as well as the storage and removal of lawn equipment, bicycles, and other items stored in a garage. By allowing a side yard setback of 6.4 feet a 24 foot wide garage could be built that would allow for the adequate storage of 2 cars and various lawn equipment." 2. You wi I I noPe from the sketch at the left, that the appl icant has a fiatal 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 leave 6.4 feet rather than the 10.0 feet reyuired.in the ordinanc�e. The problem here is obviously that the house was constructed 14.6 feet from irhe east property line. Ha� the structure been built l0 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. Generally, the houses in the neighporhood conform to the minimal 10 foot side yard requirement, and from this standpoint there is some question as to whErher the proposral is appropriate. The additional storaCe space referred ta could be accommodated by the development of a deeper garag� 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 lesser 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 thz n�ighborhood and the village as a whole. On the other hand, if the applicant can c�emonstrate thar some physical feature of the lot makes