PCAgenda_95Dec11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nsu, iNC. ~ aa~roia Planning Report 9595 NorthroplSchiffman-Kloser 721"8/55 ,~ In this case, the resut# that the applicant and the City agree on is to provide a two-car garage. It is riot the City's job to design the project for the applicant, but if we are saying that the result can be achieved without a variance, it is reasonable to show haw this might be dane_ The atkached sketches, Figures 3, 4, 5 and G illustrate four ways to provide atwo-car garage on the lot without a substantial variance: Figure 3 - Concept A. This design consists of another one-car stall added to the north side of the house next to the existing garage, without encroaching on the setback. The stall is added perpendicular to the existing single garage stall, with its own driveway out to t~larthrop Street. White not the most elegant solution, it does accomplish the desired result, and is similar to another garage in this neighborhood fi which two cars enter the same garage from different sides, with different driveways. This second driveway would need a variance, which might be reasonable given the lot's large sire and corner location. There are also cases in the City where fin+o cars are parked end-to-end in a garage. Concept A would take up some yard space near the front door and ®ncroach on the drip line of the oak tree, but probably riot as much as the applicants' plan. Figure 4 -Concept B. This design adds an entirely new two-car garage on the north side of the house, comple#ety within the setbacks. Driveway aooess would be off of Alorthrop Street. I have suggested one way that access #o the house could be taken, through the existing front closet. I am certain there are other ways this could be done • too. A design like this one would use a larger portion of the existing yard on the north side of the lot. This would infringe an the views across the corner of the lot to and from the front of the house, which the applicarrfs would t~ce to avoid if poss~te. This plan would also impact the oak tree, perhaps about as much as the applicants' plan. Figure 5 -Concept G. Anew two-car garage could be added on the south side of the house as well. Because 1 am uncertain of lot dimensions, this solution might need a rear yard variance. This would be looked on more favorably than a front yard variance to a public street, however. This design would block use and view of the "back yard° - the south end of the lot ~ but again #his impact would need to be weighed against the public interest in preserving the front yard setback. Figure 6 -Concept D. Anew two-car detached garage could be built at the south edge of the lot as well. City Cade would require it to be at least 12 feet from the house to qualify as a detached accessory structure, but then it vueuld only need a 5-foot setback to the south tot line. This design would also block use and view of the back yard as noted above. Without going into too much detail we have shown that there are at least four different ways to reasonably get two cars on site-two of them without resorting to a variance, . the others needing a second driveway variance or a less onerous rear yard variance.