My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-234
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 201-300
>
VN-234
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 4:58:04 AM
Creation date
3/12/2007 1:16:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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).
View images
View plain text
- '~~~. ,.g~ ~,,.r~.. _ - <br />z ~'",° <br />.r~ <br />~~ ~ <br />C - <br />~:- <br />/'< <br />a`~. <br />Ms .: Brenda Krueger <br />,. June 1, - 1 g84 <br />Page 2 <br />In order to properly understand the undue hardship, it is necessary to, <br />review the background of this matter. Remington first brought blueprints. <br />and: plans to the City of New Brighton and applied for a building permit. <br />The Building Official reviewed the plans and advised Remington and the City <br />Planner that a variance. would be required. Unfortunately, the Building.: <br />Official' old neither the -0ity Planner nor Remington the exact amount of <br />the variance that would be required. Remington. then made application for a <br />variance permit through City Planner Brenda Krueger who advised Remington <br />that it must submits "footprint" showing the location of the house on the <br />lot. The "footprint" was prepared by Surveyor-James Kurth who did :not show <br />a post which was to be located an additional eight-feet forward of the <br />"footprint." That post had been included on the blueprints submitted to <br />the Building Official... The .purpose of the post is to support the roof <br />trusses which extended to that point because of the design of the roof. <br />Variances were granted by the Council on advice of the Planning Commission <br />without reference to the post. Subsequently, the Building Official. <br />reviewed the prints, plans, .and variance with representatives of Remington <br />Builders and granted a building permit. <br />Remington ordered its materials and began construction of the home. On or <br />about May 23, 1984, the Building Official visited the site and "red-tagged° <br />the job, citing a violation of the front yard requirement by virtue of <br />observing footings which were to be used for the post. The Building <br />Official finally agreed to remove the red tag based upon our agreement that <br />we would write a letter to him stating that we would not locate a pos t <br />within the required front yard which would be used to support the roof. We <br />have done so and were then able to continue construction. <br />At the time that construction was halted, the roof trusses had already been <br />constructed to the design in the prints. The poet is necessary to support <br />the roof trusses. Any change in the roof at this time would leave <br />Remington with several thousand dollars worth of specially made useless <br />roof trusses. Any change in the roof at this time would require a total <br />redesign of the house as simply using different trusses to make a shorter <br />roof would create an architectural monstrosity. This is designed to be a <br />very beautiful house in a very beautiful neighborhood. You .will note that <br />the support post is depicted as part of a beautiful brick arching in the <br />enclosed drawing. The design as presented should be maintained both for.. <br />the sake of the property itself as well as adjoining properties in the <br />neighborhood. <br />Thin situation would not have occurred without a series of unique cir- <br />cumstances. These circumstances are: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.