Laserfiche WebLink
VILCflG~ 0~ ~~ICON ~I~IG~ITS• RAIy1SEY000NTY,MINNESOTA <br />VILLAGE HALL <br />1644 WEST LARPENTEUR <br />SAINT PAUL 13, MINNESOTA <br />Phone MI. 4-5050 <br />June 1, 1965 <br />lair. George W. Plant, Chairman Planning Commission <br />1861 Moore Street <br />Falcon Heights, Minnesota <br />Dear Mr. Plants <br />Re: Collin Alexander Fence Variance <br />Application - 1868 Arona <br />This matter was considered at the regular meeting on May 26, <br />1965, and it was decided further information was needed and this was obtained <br />and..a special meeting was held May 28, 1965 at which meeting the application <br />for a variance eras approved. <br />Howard Dahlgren, planning consultant was contacted. He <br />indicated that the thirty foot set-back was placed in the ordinance for <br />two reasonss (1) to provide protection against possible traffic hazards <br />which might be created by erection of a fence too close to intersecting <br />street, and (2) to protect the interests of an adjacent property. owner <br />to the rear, who may be facing the side street (Ruggles, in this case). <br />On the basis of the Councilts inspection, it appears no <br />traffic hazard would be created.. It also appears that there is no property <br />owner to the rear facing on Ruggles. In fact, that property owner has a <br />garage located very close to Ruggles, and he has given written assent to the <br />variance application. <br />The Council does not feel that the application should be <br />granted based on the above two considerations alone. The character of <br />the area must be considered, and it is to be noted that there are several <br />residences located within ten feet of the lot line adjacent to Ruggles, <br />and one is approximately five feet distant. Further, many residences <br />have substantial growths of shrubbery right on the lot line. If, however, <br />other residences in the area were in compliance with the set-back require- <br />ments, the Council would not be interested in making an exception in this <br />case. <br />We think the above matters would have strong persuasive <br />force if we decided not to approve the request and the property owner <br />decided to carry the matter further. He might well succeed with these <br />factors in his favor. <br />Very truly yours, <br />WHBsty <br />CC to all tt~mbers Planning Comm. <br />William H. Black <br />