Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commieei,on October 7, 1981 <br />Regulex Meek~ng Pege ~our <br />^-------------------°---------------------------^------------------~------ <br />~fficial Rose repozted thar, Staff had racaived <br />a building permit application laet week from <br />Mr. Pearson and hie contractor, Mr. Day, and <br />that whila the Building Code wvuld allow tha <br />5~' eetback between the propoeed new addition <br />and exieting garage, the 2oning Code requirae <br />a 6' mininum, whicn tha applicant would be 6" <br />ahort of ineeeing. <br />Chairperson Mountin aeked what the hardehip <br />would be. bir. Day replied that the Peareon e <br />need more living room and dining room epace, <br />and the propoeed addition ie Che oniy feaaible <br />way of doing it. <br />'Phe Commiseiottexe disoueeed tha requeat, asking <br />what the size of the lot ie, whether the addition <br />cuuld be attuched to the garage, or a breazaway <br />put in, whY a 5' addiCi~n wart requested, rather <br />than a b'6' additian. <br />Mr, Pearson replied that the lot is 98' wide <br />by 160' deep. Ofticial Roee addad that if the <br />addikion waa attached to the Aaraga, they would <br />ose the windows and lighL-, and if a breezeway <br />re attached, iC would require frost footinge <br />e pat in on the garc~ge. Mr, Ds,y. added that <br />the 5' addition wae derived from taking into <br />consideration the furnitur~ eize, such as tne <br />dining rcom table, and ao forth, with 5' being <br />the minimum that would work. Mr. Pearson <br />edded theC they had originally planned for a 6' <br />addition, but felt iC would be too cloae T.o the <br />garage. <br />Chairpereon Mountin reviewed what is needed to <br />find a hardehip. She als~ aeked whaL• eubetantial <br />compliance meant. Official Rose replied Chat <br />it muet be taken individually, and the 6" muet <br />oe eoneidexed ae to how it relates to the intent <br />of tfie code, There wae coneiderable diacuesioa <br />among the Gommiaeionere regarding the definition <br />af a hardship and whether a hardahip was being <br />presented by the applicant. <br />Chairman Mountin read propoeed Resolution No, <br />40-81, atat3ng that whexeae the owner of 2565 <br />She•rwood Road, Robert Pearson, and Day`e <br />Remode~ing, 2701 County Road H, have requseted <br />a variance of 6" between the new hou~e eddition <br />d exiating garage, and whereas the Planning <br />~msisaion has reviewed the variance re~~sest to <br />accomodate a 5' addition to the existing houee <br />with only a 5'6" separator, and whereas the <br />State Building Code requires a minimuc~ of 3' <br />8, Robert Peareon - <br />Jim Day, Praperty <br />Involved - 2565 <br />Sherwood Road, Variance <br />Requeet (3eeback <br />Between Structurae) <br />Caee 98-8I <br />~ ~ <br />