CC PACKET 04241990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting April 17 , 1990 Page 15 .1 2 with the City for the rest of the histories of precedents . 3 4 Commissioner Franzese reported speaking to a Commissioner who had 5 served over 30 years ago who had indicated that during that time there 6 had always been some sort of reviewal of structures before they could be 7 moved into the City . She said that person was very surprised to learn 8 that practice had not been continued . Mr. Burt reported he had been 9 unable to find a record of that practice in the files . He said coming 10 from another city he had been surprised that there .was no reviewal process 11 in place for St . Anthony now. He assured the Commissioners there would be 12 one considered during the recodification of the City Ordinance which 13 someone else was doing for St . Anthony now becuase he believed homes 14 which are moved in from another city can greatly affect the neighborhoods 15 into which they are brought. 16 17 The City Manager said he wasn ' t questioning the applicants ' or the con- 18 tractor ' s assertions about "multi inspections" of the footings of this 19 property but would have to rely on Mr. Hamer' s and the contractor ' s 20 recollections in the letter which had been distributed to the Commissioner 21 Commission Recommendation 22 23 24 Motion by Wanger , seconded by Hansen to recommend the City Council deny 25 the request for a 23 foot front yard setback variance for 2917 33rd 26 Avenue N. E. on the basis that the Planning Commission has intrepreted 27 the 1973 Ordinance to mean that the setback must be the greater of a 28 front yard having a depth of at least thirty feet or equal to the average 29 front yard of the two adjacent lots measured from the front lot line 30 which in this case is 53 feet 4 inches . The Commission also bases its 31 recommendation of denial on : 32 33 1-. the request does not meet the three required .conditions for grant- 34 ing a variance. A hardship does not exist since there is room 35 in the rear yard to construct a garage; 36 2. the fact that there were objections from the neighbors to the 37 substantial deviation from the average front yard setback of 38 adjacent properties; 39 3. the variance request was not included in the permit to install 40 the home moved from Roseville or the request to put in foundation 41 footings . 42 43 Before the vote was taken it was verified that the Ordinance would 44 allow a garage on the west side which was at least 10 feet distant from 45 the adjacent structure and that a garage meeting the Ordinance require- 46 ments could be constructed in the rear yard. 47 48 Commissioner Hansen indicated his concerns about the communications betweei 49 the City and the applicants had been satisfactorily answered and said he 50 now believed the staff had acted appropriately throughout the whole process. He said he expected that there would always be a certain amount of anxiety on the part of neighbors whenever a home different from what wa! previously there is moved into a neighborhood which is not unlike that