Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />July 12, 1995 <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Youngquist, 391 South Owasso, appeared in support of the variance request. <br />He pointed out that a house adjacent to him is located closer to the lake and does not <br />adversely affect his site. Mr. Youngquist stated that the removal of the old cabin and the <br />construction of a new house would beautify the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki asked staff what the setback requirements in St. Paul were. The staff <br />indicated that they did not know. Chairman Wietecki stated that it would be more <br />appropriate to look at St. Paul setback requirements on 40-foot lots. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom stated that the proposal would create hardship to the neighborhood. <br />Therefore, the variance should be rejected and the applicant required to build within the <br />setback requirements. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki stated that he was okay with the lot size variances but was concerned <br />about the sideyard variance. <br /> <br />Member Harms questioned whether the same plan could be used, but moved back further <br />from the lake. <br /> <br />Member Harms also expressed concern in light of the case on Josephine Road and in this <br />case whether or not every person is supposed to get legal advice concerning their <br />proposed development plans. <br /> <br />Member Wall stated that that was not for the Planning Commission to be concerned <br />about and that the Commission should be determining if a hardship exists to grant the <br />varIance. <br /> <br />Member Rhody stated that he felt that the applicant is willing to put time and money into <br />the design and that they should have another shot at designing a more workable plan. <br />Member Rhody also felt that the location of the mature oak tree presented a hardship. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki stated that it was common practice in other areas that, if a structure is <br />taken down a new structure must meet the lake shore requirements. <br /> <br />Member Rhody stated that he was not comfortable with the variance request as presented. <br /> <br />Member Harms stated that the city has helped to create a hardship and that if the <br />applicant had been given correct information, a third option could have been developed. <br /> <br />12 <br />