1999 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

� j ;:; Miller CUP Request 2081 Terrace Drive Apri121, 1999 Page 3 3. ; .'' _ iarger garage on the subject property would not appear out of place. tlVhether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Replacing the existing garage with a new, larger garage wili have an immediate positive i�npact on the vatue o�'the subject property, and may actually increase �he perceived vaiues of the homes surrounding 2109 Terrace Drive. At 1,040 square feet, set back from the street as far as it is, this garage addition would not depreczate the surrounding area in any way. The demonstrated need for such a use. The existing garage-�-while a two staii garage-- is considered fairly smail by today's standards. A 22-foot deep garage cannot even accommodate many vehicle models, such as extended minivans and SUVs. This praposal appears to satisfy the adverse effects criteria. Also in Section 1125.01, the Plaruling Commission is to examine the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, which are outiined in 5ection 1125,01, Sub 3b: El) E�) (g) (2) (3) The use wili not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, �treets and ather pubtic �acilities and util'tties which serve or are proposed to serve the area. The use will not cause traf�'tc hazards or congestion. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Replacing a sma11 garage with one larger, even one as large as is being requested, would not create a greater impact on e�sting public facilities, parks, schools or services, on utilities ar access roads, nor would it create an increase in trai�ic on adjacent sireets. The use will be su�ciently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that e�sting homes will not be ciepreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant iand. The structure and siie shall have an appearance ihat will not have an adverse ef€ec� upon adjacent residentiai properties. Because the house is set back further than is iypical, and because the garage is situated behind the house, there would be substantial public screening from this accessory structure. In terms of its relation�hip with the two adjoining properties, the garage is separated from the property to ihe east by the distance of the width of the backyard, the p►-oper�y to the west is rteither separated by physicai distance or screening, yet it already is accustomed to a garage in this locatian and as such may �ot be impacted by the larger -. ; . - . .