CC MINUTES 07241984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-7- 6 . The unique use of the building in conjunction with the adjacent nursing home. • 7. That the development be per the site plan submitted. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission representative reported. that the public hearing for the 2 foot sideyard variance request from Eugene DeKanick, 3109 Wilson Street N.E. , had changed .during their last meeting to that of discussing whether the proposed addition to the DeKanick home could be defined as a "bay" , thusnot requiring a variance. ;Commissioner -:Franzese informed the Council that the vote of the 5 Planning Commission members present at that meeting was 3 to 2 in favor of recommending the defini- tion of the DeKanick ' s addition as a "bay" . Mrs. Pat DeKanick was present to enumerate the reasons for the DeKanick's belief that their proposed addition should be considered a bay. She stated she had done considerable research on its definition and had concluded they were correct in their conclusion that the structure is a bay in that it is a cantilevered, 20 " wide with a 4 inch overhang, addition, and not an extension. of the existing structure. In her research, she had contacted several contractors, who had agreed that in their business the addition would be termed a bay. She presented pictures of other residences in St. Anthony which had only as much or less than the distance they are proposing between their structures . She also presented two letters from contractors indicating their agreement that the proposed structure was indeed a bay. Mrs . DeKanick said they • had built their home in 1959 on a smaller than average lot. She indicated she feels that with all the supporting information she has submitted, the -- ordinance has been satisfied and a variance would not be required. Mayor Sundland questioned the 4 inch overhang, which Mrs . DeKanick indicated they would not extend beyond .the roof line.. Shealso emphasized the fact that the windows to be installed in the bay would not face the neighbor' s house wall, but would face the garage. A neighbor of the DeKanick' s, Mr. Harold Root, 3107 Wilson Street N.E. , was present to oppose the DeKanick' s request. Mr. Root' s first comment was directed at the fact that they had received incomplete prints of the proposed structure and felt he 'was never given the proper dimensions of the addition, i .e. , .the most recent print he received showed the addition to be 24 inches wide as opposed to the revised 20 inch width. He maintains that the proposed. `addition is an extension of the dining room and not a bay. He also, "commented �that,_ I'f this request had_ been sub= . mitted as is and not identified at all for approval , if it met the requirements , it could be built and if it didn't meet the requirements Lt couldn' t be built." He feels that "probably. the sole purpose of term- ing this a bay. is to circumvent the law" . He does not feel this is a good, neighborly practice, and said he had the support of other neighbors . Mayor Sundland stated that after examining the question, the matter had been referred to the City Attorney for an opinion. • Mr. Soth, opined that ordinance interpretation, such as in this case , where the City Ordinance does not give specific definition, must