My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_95Dec11
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
199x
>
1995
>
PCAgenda_95Dec11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2009 8:29:04 AM
Creation date
7/6/2009 3:57:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
DSU, INC. C~j003lO10 <br />Planning Reporf 9595 NorthroplSchiffman-Klc~ser ?2l8/g5 2 <br />• <br />The existing one-car garage is attached at the northeast corner of the house with the <br />driveway and garage door facing out to Falwell Street. The applicants' pNan (attached <br />sketch, Figure 2} is to use part of the existing garage and construct additional garage <br />space to achieve a new 22' x 24' two-car garage. The south half of the garage would <br />be remodeled internally to be part of the kitchen. <br />! have spoken with the applicants on the phone and met with Dr. Schiffman to review <br />his plans and my recommendation. <br />PLANNING C®NS1131=RATIONS <br />Based on my understanding of conversations with the applicants, they have three <br />wishes in this case: <br />9} To have atwo-car garage attached to the house <br />2) To expand the existing kitchen <br />3} To preserve the existing yard space and views to and from the house <br />Many Karnes in Faleon Heights were built with one-car garages, but variances have <br />been granted to alloy firvo-car garages, depending an the individual circumstances. <br />Considering modern reliance an the automobile, adding a typical two-car garage <br />{assume 22' x 24' in size} is not unreasonable. This approach is followed in many Twin <br />Cities communities. The first consideration above is therefore a reasonable starting <br />paint in discussing the variance request. <br />The second issue above is created lay the applicants themselves and is not considered <br />a necessity for this lot and house. We can certainly sympathize with their desire, and <br />we encourage investment in properties, but it should not be considered a necessity. <br />The third issue above has some bearing on the variance consideration, but this private <br />benefit must be weighed against the overall public interest of establishing and <br />maintaining a (rant yard setback to public streets. One consideration in the current yard <br />situation is a large oak tree in the northwest corner of the iot which may be affected by <br />the proposed plan or another plan. The applicant should proceed carefully with any <br />building project that would affect the drip line of the tree. 'This can be done with careful <br />planning, pruning, and careful treatment of the ground under the tree. <br />The City has nine cxiteria under "Standards for Granting a Variance" in the caning <br />Code. Before considering each of these standards, it would be helpful, I believe, to <br />ask the basic question: can the desired result be achieved without needing a variance? <br />The answer, 1 believe, is yes, it can. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.