PL PACKET 06151993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting May 18, 1993 Page 5 1 applicant had provided copies of his arguments in favor of 2 the permit for the Commissioners . 3 4 Mr. Henry indicated he thought the garage would look 5 better 12 feet closer to the street than twelve feet 6 further away. He said the appearance of his home was very 7 important to him. His plan was to spend an extra $1, 200 8 to stucco the garage to match the house. He added that a 9 shorter driveway would prevent any future owner of the 10 property from parking boats, etc. in front of the garage 11 because the grade would be too steep. On the other hand, 12 a driveway 12 feet longer would be more level . If he 13 isn't allowed a double garage to park two vehicles in 14 there will probably be either a boat or a snowmobile 15 parked outside. 16 17 Mr. Henry indicated his intent to plant shrubbery and 18 bushes around the proposed garage as a buffer for the 19 neighbors ' view. This would include a hedge where the fence is now and three more trees . He said the neighbors across the street weren't "excited" about his plans but 22 hadn't opposed them either. The neighbor north of him had 23 indicated he was not opposed to the proposal as long as 24 Mr. Henry continued the existing fence to prevent people 25 from cutting through. Mr. Henry reiterated that he 26 perceived a nice stucco garage would look a lot nicer than 27 a cement slab with a boat and snowmobile which are in 28 storage now parked on it. 29 30 The applicant noted that almost all the houses and garages 31 on Penrod all the way up to 37th Avenue maintained the 32 same setbacks from the street as his home, having been 33 grandfathered into the Ordinance. 34 35 When asked why he didn't just make an addition to his 36 existing garage, Mr. Henry said he had gotten bids on that 37 and a detached garage and found it would cost him $33, 000 38 to attach extra stalls with a small addition to a bedroom 39 while the detached garage with the same stucco finish as 40 the house would only cost him $14, 000 . the latter was all 41 the couple could afford at this time he added. He would 42 just meet the 30% ordinance restriction with the garage 43 located where he had proposed a garage with a 45 foot 44 sideyard setback from the street would require a 12 foot 105 long driveway and would take up too much of his backyard, 6 the applicant said. And even then he might only be able 47 to have a stall and a half structure and would have to