Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tom Brama, applicant, addressed the City Council. He noted this would not be out of 1 <br />character with the other fifteen houses in the neighborhood. He indicated there are already four 2 <br />houses in the neighborhood that are ten feet apart from each other so it that would not be a 3 <br />unique circumstance. He would further like to point out that if the garage were actually a 4 <br />detached structure that would be allowed to be five feet off the property line but because it is 5 <br />attached to the principal structure that is where the five and ten feet come in. He is trying to do 6 <br />this in order to avoid disturbance to the existing single car garage and putting a detached 7 <br />structure in the backyard which would result in a loss of tree coverage and increase impervious 8 <br />surface. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Councilmember Randle asked if Mr. Brama’s intent was to purchase the property. Mr. Brama 11 <br />explained he did have a purchase agreement on the property. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Mr. Jim Roth, 3400 Roosevelt Street NE, stated at the Planning Commission meeting he did not 14 <br />think it was relevant to mention that he has been on the City Council, but the applicant sent him a 15 <br />letter indicating it might be, so he was making the disclosure now. He explained he has served 16 <br />with two of the Councilmembers. He did not want this, in any way, to influence a decision that 17 <br />would be made tonight. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Mr. Roth stated he would like to address the Planning Commission meeting and comments made 20 <br />by Commissioner Neumann during the comments section. He indicated he had a problem with 21 <br />how the commissioner implied that the reason why he might have a problem with this is that he 22 <br />did not like change. For that he would say that the only constant in the world is change. That 23 <br />has absolutely nothing to do with why he would oppose this. In the Planning Commission 24 <br />meeting, it was brought up that the reason the current owner might not have sold the building is 25 <br />because it did not have a two car garage and yet looking at the records online the owner bought it 26 <br />in 2006 and was already being rented when he moved in next door. He stated the owner bought 27 <br />the house in the height of the market and no way would he get his money back in a five-year 28 <br />span once the housing market crashed. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Mr. Roth explained other comments made in the Planning Commission meeting were when 31 <br />looking at the photo it was implied that the cement surface goes a little bit beyond the structure 32 <br />and yet the cement on the property is actually even with the actual structure and does not go 33 <br />beyond the structure. He explained the builder has moved windows and doors on the house and 34 <br />cannot find the same siding as what is on the house so if he does not do something he will be 35 <br />upside down on the house so a two car garage is going to sell for more than a one car garage. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Mr. Roth indicated right now the distance between the homes is nineteen feet and he thinks it 38 <br />changes the character of his house in that his main bedroom on the first floor and second 39 <br />bedroom on the first floor and the main bedroom on the second floor, instead of having a 40 <br />structure that is nineteen feet away has now gone to ten feet away. They live in St. Anthony 41 <br />because they are not in Minneapolis. Minneapolis houses are stacked on top of each other. To 42 <br />him, it changes the character of the neighborhood the more we start to squeeze houses together. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Mr. Roth stated for him he found it to be solely economic because he is not going to live there, 45 <br />he is going to sell the house and the current owner has not lived there for at least ten years. He 46 <br />4