Laserfiche WebLink
MWNnS Vt~W PLANNING COMtdi5~i0r1 Reqular Maeting <br />Pege Six. Apl•il l0 198~ <br />- -'-°"-'.'.""_°""""'_-""'."_"""""'_'_"'--"-"--."-_"-'°-""'.. <br />Mr. end Mrs. Ch111nsk1, ownsrs of the property, end 9. Veriance (reduced house <br />M r. Da~~td Enge? : r,nntreetor. were in attendance. setbeck from 10` to 6') <br />~ 5242 Red Odk D71Vo - D0Vld <br />Official RAse presented the Planning Consideratlons Engei <br />re~erding the Verlence reques4 loceted et 5242 <br />Red Oek DNive. <br />Mr. Dav1d Engels, 6~ntrector, steted that he hed <br />celled the C1ty for the setback requirements and <br />hed been told thet they wewe 30' for the house and <br />5' for the garage. Ne hed went on the essumptlon <br />thet he hed miscaicuieted the lot lines, Ho thought <br />khat thcro ~ras 12' on Lhe side thet he wes dealing <br />Nith. He seid that he had brought a drawing lnto <br />the C1ty and Lhat n survey had not been evaileble <br />a t th~t t4mr. <br />Commissicner Breske asked 1f a Building Permit <br />hed bnen 9ssued. Officlat Rose statad Chet the <br />appticant had ap~;lled for a Bullding Permlt, had <br />brought 1n a plen that showed e 72` setback and <br />thet the staff had fou~d out later that the sethack <br />wes only 5 feet. further that the bullder.and <br />owner were notified ta stop constructicn of the <br />a ddltlon, but that they cauld make the house <br />seeure for water shed, He discussed the buitding <br />permit process. <br />~ Comm15s1onttr M111er said ti1aC she has been out to the <br />a ree. She asked what the extension was from the <br />greenhouse. Mr. Ch111rfski steted thet it was e <br />workshop teaning onta the garage. <br />Mr. Engels sLated that he hed essumed that the <br />Bu11d1ng Permlt had been let at the time of the <br />Du91d1ng PermiL applicatton. Official Rase ~teted <br />that no Dullding Permit is every given at the time <br />of app]tcetion. He steted thet no Bu11d1ng Permit <br />was evEr issued. <br />Commissioner 0reske steted tt~a~ he feels that some- <br />thfng happened that the C1ty doesn't want to hnppen <br />again ar,d that 1s that - the Contractor started the <br />expansion withnut u Buitdi~g Permlt. <br />McCarthy stated that 1n the applieatlon she did not <br />feel that khis was a uMque hardsMp. <br />MA~tN MntlonLecon_d: Warren/Miller moved ta deny <br />tTe vnrlance on nase 75-81 for Mr. and Mrs. <br />Ch171nsk1 af 5242 Red Oak Drive, whereas SecCton <br />40.05, subd. c., nf the Code requires a 10! setback <br />f or the house side of e structure and thls structure <br />be a 5' setback; end, whereas this request does not <br />~demonstrete a hardshlp; and wherens EM s situatlon is <br />not unique to Mounds View. <br />Am~ndment ta the Mo 7on: McCarthy moved to emend <br />the motlon to add that "this property batng set <br />