pm_791003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-3- Planning File 1226 - Craig Hanson request for division of lot, relocation of dwelling and variance to side yard setback at 1898 Chatsworth Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated the property in question has a frontage of 147.33 I on Chatsworth Street. The applicant proposes to divide the prope~ into two lots with 73.66 feet of frontage for each lot. The existing single family dwelling on this lot would then be roved to the northern IIDSt parcel created by this division. He also indicated that contraJ:y to the request, a detached garage would not be built but rather the current attached garage would be kept. Discussion Mrs. Cushing had a question on the reason for the required setback. and it was explained to her that this was required because of the attached garage. Mr. Dahlgren indicated that the attached garage with the accorrpanying variance would be preferable to having the detached garage. Fecorrnendation Mr. Rukavina IIDVed and Mrs. Cushing seconded, that the Conrnission recormend approval of Craig Hanson's request for division of lot, relocation of dwelling and variance to side yard setback at 1898 Chatsworth. Roll Call, Ayes: Rukavina, Cushing, Mastel, Simms, Dressler, G. Johnson, V. Johnson. Nays: None. Planning File 1227 - Midway Ford request for variance to fence height at 2777 Snelling Avenue Presentation Mr. Dahlgren indicated the property in question is the MiCMay Ford site on the west side of Snelling Avenue. He stated that the conpany is having problems with vandalism and that for this reason they wish to encircle their property with a chain link fence. He further explained that the City ordinance allows fences up to 3~ feet high anywhere on a lot and up to 6~ feet high any place on a lot except in the front yard. The Midway Ford people are, therefore, requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 7 foot fence all around. He further indicated that four gates would be provided. It was Mr. Dahlgren's belief that a 7' fence in front of the property would detract from the property and possibly inhibit business at the site. He had, therefore, made an alter- nate proposal wherein the fence would not run directly in front of the property but would corre from the front property line opposite each corner of the building to the building itself. Discussion Mr. Ed Tischler, representing the applicant, indicated that they had had $150,000 worth of damage and that other security rreasures such as increased patrols had not been successful. He was aware of the possibility of negative results coming from the chain link fence and indicated that he felt a balance had to be reached between the success of the business and further damage to property. Mr. Rukavina asked again, the type of fence that would be constructed and Mr. Tischler indicated that the fence would be aluminium chain link with one line of barbed wire at the top.