Laserfiche WebLink
PLMIIr XUUUMMMIUA a <br /> MINUTES, August 21. 1990 <br /> 1 parking cars over the bedroom. The garage cannot be extended on either <br /> 2 side of the house because it would be too close to lot lines. Neighbors do <br /> 3 no have a problem with the 6.5 foot extension. <br /> • 4 <br /> 5 Renner described the proposed garage as having the weight of the cars <br /> 6 toward the street side of the garage and the not over the basement. He <br /> 7 confirmed that an engineer has not been consulted regarding the existing <br /> 8 safety factor. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 As a licensed structural engineer, Madden reminded Renner that he is <br /> 11 obliged to maintain a safe structure whether or not there is a car over a <br /> 12 bedroom. A deteriorating condition should be remedied. Madden does <br /> 13 not see sufficient reason for variance request in this situation. <br /> 14 Waterproofing materials are available to correct the present moisture <br /> 15 problem. According to*the design presented, Madden pointed out that it <br /> 16 is still a garage and the capability of its use as such remains regardless of <br /> 17 how the cars are parked. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 If it isn't a structural question, Renner was told he could still request a <br /> 20 variance. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Werenicz had doubts as to whether the required conditions were present <br /> 23 to answer the variance questions in the affirmative. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Hansen suggested there was more to this request than a safety problem <br /> 26 and that he tends to like to see these variances passed because it is good <br /> 27 to have property improvement. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Franzese said that with no benefit of an engineer's report, their decision <br /> 30 would have to be made without the safety factor. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 The hearing was closed at 7:59. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Madden said that after reviewing the site, the homes on that block are <br /> 35 lined up and have a neat appearance. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Faust referred to the three questions of the Minnesota Statutes and City <br /> 38 Ordinances said that he cannot answer in the affirmative for this variance <br /> 39 request. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Werenicz to recommend to the City <br /> 42 Council denial of variance to James Renner for 3220 Townview Avenue <br /> 43 because the request did not satisfactorily answer the three questions <br /> 44 required by Minnesota Statutes in the affirmative. <br /> 45 <br />