Laserfiche WebLink
David Farley <br />777 E. Viking Drive <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />March 9, 1998 <br />City of Little Canada <br />Planning Commission <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />Dear Planning Commission: <br />Attached is my application for a zoning code variance for an addition to my property at 777 E. Viking <br />Drive. <br />Background <br />In December the City of Little Canada issued me a permit for the construction I had planned. (Cf. <br />Construction plans attached.) <br />At that time the Building Inspector did not feel a variance was necessary. Since I had inquired of city staff <br />a number of times over the course of the last couple years regarding this construction and was informed <br />that a "grandfather" stipulation was in effect allowing me to construct in the way I had planned, I did not <br />either feel a variance was required. <br />Recently city staff informed me that this application for a variance would put things in order for the work <br />covered by this permit and asked me to make the application. <br />Location <br />My home is located at 777 E. Viking Drive. I believe the legal description is "the South 1727 feet of the <br />West 154 feet of the East 607 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey <br />County, lying North of State Trunk Highway No. 36/118. <br />Description of Building Plan <br />The building plan we have submitted includes a remodeling of the house already on the property and an <br />addition to it which will include a family room and an enlarged garage with access shifting from the west to <br />the north. <br />The character of the house and property will remain residential within our residential neighborhood. <br />Basis for Findings <br />I believe that the current reading of the ordinance by city staff (that I need a variance at this point) creates <br />an undue hardship for me. Additionally, I believe that the variance I propose is in keeping with the spirit <br />and intent of the zoning ordinance. These point apply: <br />1. As I understand it, the easement I granted to the city for the maintenance of the roadway when it was <br />resurfaced in 1994 is the cause of change in the way city staff is now reading the ordinance. <br />Something changed when the easement was granted which is now interfering with the "grandfather" <br />setback of five feet. <br />While I would have been subject to a setback requirement previously of five feet, this easement is <br />causing some change requiring a greater setback. <br />Page 8 <br />