My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-1998
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
06-17-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 7:24:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2018 7:01:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/17/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
coverage is allowable. In neither instance could a shed be allowed, because current regs <br /> • prohibit a shed if the garage exceeds 1,000 square feet. This seems to be an overly <br /> restrictive requirement, especially for large lots and lots with garages attached to the <br /> homes or alongside it. It is for this reason that this requirement has been deleted. Under <br /> the proposed regulations, however, the shed would not be allowed because the garage <br /> already exceeds the limit for accessory building coverage in the rear yard. <br /> Scenario 4. <br /> In this scenario, the property owners would like to construct an 864 square-foot garage <br /> on their half-acre lot. Under the current guidelines, this would be allowed outright <br /> because it is 864 square feet or less and does not take up more than 25 percent of the <br /> rear yard. Under proposed guidelines, however, this garage would not be allowed without <br /> a CUP because the garage is nearly 40 percent larger than the home. There is no current <br /> requirement that the garage be proportionate to the house. In this case then, the garage <br /> would seem to dominate the property and look out of place. This is one of the reasons <br /> why the garage regulations and requirements need to be revised. <br /> Scenario S. <br /> The last example presented herein is the case similar to two before the City this year <br /> alone. The property owner wishes to move an existing tiny one-car garage to the rear of <br /> the lot and replace it with a larger, more updated two-car model. The lot is 43,560 <br /> square feet, or, one acre, so there is plenty of room for the garage. However,because of <br /> the current area regulations for garages, the proposed garage would require a CUP as it <br /> exceeds 864 square feet. The amended Code raises the limit for garages without a CUP <br /> to 952 square feet (28 feet by 34 feet.) Thus, the applicant would not need a CUP under <br /> the revised guidelines. Because t. - s -• es- a • - . - -• . . . - - - . . _ _ ._ <br /> needed for that, which is the same under either system. Even if the lot were not so large, <br /> or even the minimum, a 952 square-foot would not be so imposing, unless of course the <br /> house was tiny. In that case, a CUP would be required so it no longer was a permitted <br /> garage. On the other hand, if the home's foundation were 1,200 square feet, a 952 <br /> square foot garage would blend in quite well. <br /> Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.