My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCMin_92Apr27
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
199x
>
1992
>
PCMin_92Apr27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2009 2:42:14 PM
Creation date
6/25/2009 9:17:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
View images
View plain text
• MINUTES <br />REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />April 27, 1992 <br />7:00 P.M. <br />PRESENT: ABSENT• ALSO PRESENT• <br />Lee Barry Ken Salzberg Susan Hoyt, Administrator <br />Len Boche Acting as Planner <br />Ed Finegan Paul Ciernia, Council- <br />Marie Furton member <br />Steve Huso <br />Carolyn Nestingen <br />Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Lee Barry, Chair. <br />The minutes of the March 30, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved <br />as written. <br />REPORTS, REOUESTS RECOMMENDATIONS <br />1. Request for a variance from $9-4.01(4)[c] of the zoning <br />code for 2291 Hoyt Avenue in an R-1 zone. <br />. The property owner, George Albrecht, presented to the commission <br />his request for a 16 foot variance in the required front yard <br />setback of 30 feet to construct a double garage and eliminate an <br />existing single car garage on his property. <br />The proposed garage will replace a terrace and deck that currently <br />intrudes 16 feet into the 30 foot setback. The existing one-car <br />garage will be turned into living space and the existing driveway <br />eliminated. <br />After some discussion, motion was made by Finegan to approve the <br />variance based on the following criteria: <br />(a) Double garages are now standard for residential <br />property. Occasionally, variances are necessary <br />to meet this need on the urban lots developed in the <br />past. <br />(b) The proposed garage represents a continuation of an <br />existing setback in the front yard. <br />(c) There are examples of other similarly sited garages <br />in the nearby residential streetscape. <br />(d) Topography and landscaping prohibits the extension of <br />• the double garage to the east. <br />(e) Meets the standards for granting a variance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.