VN-233 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Meyers May 17, 1984 Page.2 Plannin Commission Consideration: See attached minutes APPLICANT'S RESPONSE The applicant has outlined their request for a variance in the attached letter. A site survey and proposed site plan are also attached., Their. existing garage was destroyed during the recent tornado. That. garage was nonconforming both in the front yard and side yard setbacks. The applicant states that the proposed .new garage will be brought into compliance with the side .yard. setback requirements. The applicant also states that the lot is narrow and that the existing home is placed on the lot in such a manner that it is not possible to construct a two car garage within the .required setbacks. The proposed garage and driveway configuration will provide for 6 off-street parking spaces, where before there were only 2 off-street parking spaces. A petition was submitted by the applicant at the public hearing stating that the surrounding residents are in favor of the proposed garage and variance request. STAFF ANALYSIS The site nonconformity is the setback of the existing house from the northeast. property line. At this location the house comes within 2 feet of the property line. Section 8-460 of .the New Brighton zoning code states that permission fora nonconforming use permit may be granted if the extent of the nonconformities are reduced where practical. In this case the only nonconformity is the side yard setback. It does not appear practical at this time to move the house or take off part of the existing structure to meet the required five-foot setback. If in the future the owners of this property desire to upgrade the existing structure through extensive remodeling or building construction, consideration should be given to bringing the house into compliance with the side yard setback requirement. The new garage will be brought into compliance with the side yard setback requirements. I agree with the applicant that the size of the lot and the location of the existing home do not allow construction of a double car garage on the site which could conform to present day setback re- quirements. Although a single car garage could be constructed within all the setback requirements I feel it is rrot unreasonable that the applicant should desire a double car garage. The applicant has indicated in the attached letter that they have two cars that they strongly desire to keep inside a garage during the winter and to protect from other out- side elements. The orientation of the proposed garage, as shown on the site plan, has been planned with great sensitivity to the reduced front yard setback. Since. the entrance to the garage will not be facing the street the potential problem of cars parked in the driveway also being parked on the boulevard has been eliminated. The existing street right-of-way in this area is much narrower than the average present day street right-of-way varies from 30 feet to 50 feet). T-his causes a problem with on-street parking for residents in .this area. The proposed new garage and driveway layout responds well to the lack of room for on-street parking by providing a driveway area large enough to handle up to 4 additional vehicles in