Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DONALD P~ Mc GINN <br />PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER <br />- REGISTERED ARCHITECT <br />2506 BRENNER STREET <br />ST. PAUL, MN, 551 i3 <br />PAGE TWO RE: 2303 14A STREET NORTHWEST <br /> PLOT aPL'AN REVIEW <br />CODE SET BACK PLAN SET BACK <br />FRONT YARD 30 NORTH CORNER OF GARAGE 17. <br /> OUTSIDE CORNER OF GARAGE 3l <br /> NORTH CORNER OF HOUSES 32 <br /> VISUAL AVERAGE OF FRONT YARD 28 <br />STREET YARD 30 EAST CORNER OF GARAGE ~ 0 <br />• EAST CORNER OF HOUSE 20 <br /> NORTH CORNER OF GARAGE 24 <br />' VISUAL AVERAGE OF STREET YARD 7S DETERIvF1NED BY <br /> E7tISTING TREES WHICH WILL BE.PROTECTED TO <br />Zr~~,9A{r} REMAIN.~F.ROM BUILDING 70 PROPE RTY LINE. <br />SIDE TOWARD R1 3O SAME COMMENTS <br />THE ABOVE DATA IS OFFERED TO SAVE SOME THE TIME OF <br />FIGURING !T, AND TO POINT OUT THAT THE FIGURES ARE <br />PRACTICALLY WORTHLESS THIS DESIGN :DOES- NOT HAVE <br />FENCE LIKE WALLS PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY LINES. THIS <br />DESIGN EFFECTIVELY OPENS THE PERIMcTER AREAS OF THE <br />LOT TO NEIGHBOR AND MOTORIST ALIKE. <br />I AM MAKING THIS. APPEAL NOW, WHCLE: [SHOULD HAVE MADE IT <br />SIX MONTHS AGO WHEN I BEGAN THE DESIGN, BECAUSE [WAS GIVEN <br />INCORRECT INFORMATION WHEN I PHONES NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL <br />FOR SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. BEFORE JULY FIFTH, t WAS SURE <br />THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT AND' <br />I PROCEEDED ON MANY FRONTS. I MORTGAGED MY HOUSE AND BOUGHT <br />THE LOT, I PREPARED THE PLANS -AND TOOK BIDS ON EXCAVATION <br />AND FOUNDATION WORK. WE WERE READY TO DIG JULY N"INTR. THIS <br />DELAY. IS VERY COSTE:Y. THE INTEREST ON MY LOAN IS $17.00 A DAY <br />AND GOOD CONSTRUCTION WEATHER IS GROWING SHOF.~T, THIS DELAY <br />COULD KILL. MY HOPE OF BUILDING A HOME.. <br />!F YOU ENFORCE THE SIDE YARD RESTRICTIONS,- ACCORDING TO CODE, <br />ON THIS LOT,.THE TOTAL REQUIRED IS 50 FEET WHICH EQUALS ONE-HALF <br />THE WIDTH OF THE LOT. THIS 1S DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS LOT [S <br />SANDWICHED I@irTWEEN THE STREET AND AN R-1 LOT. THE TOTAL WOULD <br />BE ONLY t0 FEET IF THIS WERE A TYPICAL DUPLEX LOT. -THE TOTAL <br />REQUIRED WOULD ONLY BE TEN FEET -FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING <br />1N AN R-I DISTRCYCT. I FEEL THIS ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE WOULD <br />BE EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY. <br />