My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
11/04/10
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2010's
>
2010
>
11/04/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2025 4:05:55 PM
Creation date
12/20/2010 2:00:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Board of Adjustment
Document Date
11/04/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PUBLIC HEARINGS/BOARD BUSINESS <br />Case #1: Public Hearing - Request for a Variance to Rear Yard Setback in the R -1 <br />Residential (MUSA) District at 5971 143 Circle NW; Case of Dale and <br />Sharon Grundberg <br />Public Hearin¢ <br />Chairperson Van Scoy called the public hearing to order at 7:04 p.m. <br />Presentation <br />Planning Manager Miller presented the Staff Report, <br />Citizen Input <br />Commissioner Brauer asked whether there was a building permit on any of the work that was <br />done. <br />Planning Manager Millet stated there was not. She explained that the Building Official went to <br />the site to do a siding inspection on the house, noticed the porch and gave a stop order for the <br />work being done on the porch. She stated that a screened porch is an allowable encroachment; <br />however an enclosed porch is not an allowable encroachment. <br />Dale and Sharon Grundberg, 5971 143` Circle, the applicants, stated they bought the house 11 <br />years ago and it had a screened porch at the time. They stated they did not know they needed a <br />building permit to enclose it, they did know they needed a permit for the siding of the house. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the porch and the definition of the encroachment. <br />Planning Manager Miller stated there is a 30 foot rear yard setback. <br />Board Member Brauer explained the Supreme Court ruling and how that makes it difficult to <br />approve variances. He continued there is very little room to maneuver. <br />City Engineer Himmer stated the process of purchasing the land behind them which is dedicated <br />as park would have to be researched. He continued there are drainage and utility easements to <br />consider and this would not give them anymore usable space, however, it would help them to <br />make the setback requirements. <br />Board Member Brauer asked when the City took possession of the land behind the house. <br />City Engineer Himmer responded it was part of the plat when it was platted. <br />Motion by Board Levine, seconded by Chairperson Van Scoy, to close the public hearing. <br />Board of Adjustment/November 4, 2010 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.