09/10/2018 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. A 15 ft. variance for width of a driveway serving an attached garage; code requires driveways to be no wider than the width of an attached garage (18 ft.), applicant shows 33 ft. wide, Section 1135.02(2)(c). 2. A variance for a parking pad located in the side yard; code does not permit, applicant shows a parking pad located in the side yard; Section 1135.02(3)(a). 3. A 4 ft. 9 in. variance for a parking pad located in a required setback; code requires 5 ft. from any property line, applicant shows 3 in., Section 1135.02(3)(b). Mr. Aspery said the applicant is proposing to widen his existing driveway. Code permits a maximum driveway width of 18 feet based on the width of the garage, whereas the applicant shows a proposed width of 33 feet extending from the existing paved area to the side property line. The pavement proposed near the side property line requires a variance to allow the driveway to extend into the side yard. The applicant shows the new driveway extending 3 inches from the side property line, requiring a 4 foot, 9 inch variance under the 5 foot setback requirement. Mr. Pytel said there is an existing two car garage with a driveway that narrows down to one car width at the street. Because of this, they need to move cars around each other and drive into the grass in order to pull out of the driveway. He received a notice to replace his driveway and he wants to expand the driveway at the same time. There is a fire hydrant on the left side of the driveway so it can only be expanded to the right. There is some traffic on the street and he is concerned for his family's safety if they have to cross the street to park. Mr. Koenig stated that there is about 20 feet from the side of the applicant's garage to the side of his home. If the variance is approved, they believed their home value would decrease since the driveway would be about 5 feet from their home. He thought the noise and fumes would increase. He thought the driveway being widened is a good idea but thought the driveway should be extended to the other side, away from his property. Mr. Aspery said the Planning Department does not approve of this proposal, as the proposed parking pad would be located very close to the neighboring dwelling to the north and would likely be detrimental to the property through vehicle proximity to the house and water runoff. Code states that the driveway cannot be used for storage of commercial vehicles, equipment or materials. A potential solution to this problem would be to widen the driveway to the 24 foot width allowed under the Chapter 1135 code update and keep the expansion out of the required side yard. Mr. Pytel said the garage is 20 feet wide. The sidewalk along the garage will need to be replaced and he would like to expand it when the driveway is replaced. Mr. Pytel stated that the property line is 15 feet, 3 inches from the home and the gate extends from the house to the property line. The side yard driveway extension would extend the length of the gate. Mr. Mackey asked if the driveway could be narrowed along the side of the garage, Mr. Pytel thought a narrower driveway would not look symmetrical if it is not the width of the gate. Mr. Pytel added that he used to have a landscaping business and still has the equipment. He said snow would be plowed into his yard. Discussion of the Planning Department's alternate proposal, Mr. Pytel believed that would still create the issue of having to maneuver cars around. Mr. Papotto was not in favor of the pavement