My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 07171984
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1984
>
PL MINUTES 07171984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 6:04:32 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 6:04:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984
SP Name
PL MINUTES 07171984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-2- <br /> DeKanick <br /> 2-DeKanick check.e.d the Hennepin County Law Library in her pursuit, of <br /> the definition but to no avail. She then contacted the State of <br /> • Minnesota Building Code Department where she was told to refer to <br /> a dictionary at the library. She went to the St. Anthony Library <br /> and proceeded to quote the definition of a bay to the Planning <br /> Commission members. <br /> The applicant indicated they have access to an 8 foot bay window or <br /> would provide two 42 inch windows, which they propose to place <br /> together. Mrs. DeKanick had taken pictures throughout St. Anthony <br /> of housing units which are closer together than what their proposal <br /> calls for. She had obtained a picture of a similar house on 28th <br /> and Coolidge, which. she felt fits the definition of bay . The appli- <br /> cants propose to construct -a porch., with brick front, aluminum facia <br /> and completely stucco the structure. Mrs. DeKanick also presented <br /> a picture which showed that the bushes in their yard were further out <br /> than the proposed cantilever. <br /> Commissioner Bjorklund went to the blackboard to draw a detailed <br /> illustration of the proposed construction. The Commissioner questioned <br /> whether the porch will align with the building. Mrs . DeKanick had <br /> researched this and indicated the porchmust be 5 feet off the property <br /> line. It was felt an overhang over the porch is needed. <br /> Again, the question of the interpretation of bay was discussed. The <br /> City Manager indicated neitherthe zoning ordinance nor the building <br /> code defines the word "bay" or "bay window" . He perceives there is a <br /> • difference between the two, and that when "bay" or "bay window" as <br /> an ordinance definition comes to his mind - the DeKanick' s interpreta- <br /> tion may be correct and if the Planning Commission interprets the <br /> addition to be a bay, a variance wouldn't be necessary. This would <br /> be true only if the .bay is cantilevered and does not go to the ground. <br /> Mr. E. B. Emerson, 2615 Townview, was present to speak for the <br /> DeKanick' s. proposal. He stated he is a neighbor and close friend of <br /> the applicants and also with other interested parties . He does not <br /> feel the proposed structure would interfere with saleable property <br /> or with access to- property during an emergency. Mr. Emerson stressed <br /> he does not believe the structure would be a detriment and emphasized <br /> he wants peace and harmony in the neighborhood to prevail. <br /> Mr. Harold Root, 3107 Wilson Street N.E. , was present to speak against <br /> the DeKanick- request. Mr. Root feels the proposed 13� feet is an <br /> addition and part-. of the building, therefore not a "bay" . He questioned <br /> the dimensions shown on the plan and asked for a clarification. He <br /> also stated his house is 7 feet away from the property line, however, <br /> he said, his original plan was 10 feet. He wanted space. between the <br /> houses . He noted, however, that the Village said no to his original <br /> plan and he had. had to build according to their wishes because the <br /> neighboring lot was a corner lot. Mr. Root indicated there is a water- <br /> shed between the properties which could possibly create a water <br /> drainage problem on that side. He feels the proposed structure would <br /> be an infringement on his .property and should not be closer than <br /> • 5 feet from the property line. He added that he feels a 9 foot <br /> separation between roof lines is too close. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.