pm_780906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-6- Mrs. Cushing stated that she had no opposition to the proposal as it presently exists, but that sone point Cleveland Avenue will be widened and the garage would br quite close to the right-of-way. She also noted that the garage will be closer than all the other structures in the area. Recormendation v. Johsnon roved, Mr. Mastel seconded, that the COOmission reccmrend denial of Gary Hills' request for variance to front yard setback at 1992 Cleveland Avenue. Ibll Call, Ayes: Mastel, SiIrons, Cushing, Dressler, G. Jolmson. Nays: Rukavina, V. Jolmson. Mr. Rukavina stated that for a structure to be located within 30 feet of the right- of-way would be a change in policy in the area but he did not see any real difficulties for such a change. Mr. V. Johsnon stated that in his opinion the variance was minor in nature and would appear to neet the criteria of particular difficulties and that since none of the neighbors in the area had opposed the variance, he felt such a request was appropriate. Planning File 1142 - IX>nald larson's request for building and parking setback at 1695 FeD"MOOd Avenue Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the applicant proposes to build a 12 x 20 foot addition to the existing building and to inprove the general appearance of the site. In order to acconplish the proposal the applicant is requesting a variance to the new addition for a one foot setback, a variance to the north side fran the required 10 feet to 5 feet and a variance on the east side fran the required 15 feet to 10 feet. '!he applicant proposes to construct new curbs for the parking area and develop landscaping as shavn on the proposed site plan. Mr. JJ.1\hlgren stated that assuming the location of the northerly property line can acCOIIJIDdate the existing easerrent and the proposed retaining wall, he felt the proposal was reasonable. Mr. Lamrers, the applicant's archi teet, stated that the proposal was intended to inprove the site and to better aCccmocx:late the operational requirerrents of the garage. He stated that the one setback on the sooth side was necessary since the existing building is setback one foot. He stated that the applicant desired to pro- vide additional parking along the north property line. Thus, the required variance is fran a 10' to as' parking setback due to the existing alley easerrent. Discussion Mrs. Dressler asked how the prq;x:>sed addition would be used. Mr. I..anTcers stated that the addition would penni t expansion of the garage naintenance facilities and also upgrade the appearance of the existing structure. Mr. V. Johnson asked where the existing alley easerrent was located. Mr. larson stated that 30' alley easerrent existed toward the rear of the property but was not sure of the precise location.