Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Michael Fahey, Mayor <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />Dear Mr. Fahay: <br />2370 Jackson <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />June 16, 1986 <br />p2\1W\I <br />prglan.qlp <br />JUN iw 1986 <br />JUN 17 1988 CITY OF <br />LITTLE CANADA <br />CITY OF <br />LITTLE CANADA <br />We respectfully request reconsideration of the property division request <br />granted by the Little Canada City Council for our property located at 110 East <br />County Road B -2. <br />At the regular meeting of the City Council on May 28, 1986, the City Council <br />approved a variance and lot division at our property located at 110 East County <br />Road B -2. The variance allowed Jackson Street to be considered the front yard <br />despite the fact that it would be the longest street frontage for the corner <br />lot. The lot division then required that the east lot line be 30 feet from <br />the present house because it would be considered the back yard in accordance <br />with the ordinance. <br />In attempting to work with this arrangement, two problems have become evident. <br />1. The lot division prescribed by the Council and shown on the <br />attached plat map provides for a lot of some 9960 square feet <br />which is 40 square feet less than the required lot size. <br />2. Because of the 30 -foot requirement to the east lot line at <br />110 East County Road B -2 and the 15 -foot side yard setback from <br />there to where a building could be located, we are limited to the <br />buildable area on the newly divided lot. <br />The ordinance requires that "granting of a variance would not confer on the <br />applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, <br />structures or buildings in the same district." Logic would dictate that the <br />converse of that would also apply; namely, that the applicant should not be <br />denied privileges that others in the same district enjoy. To that end, a <br />drive through the community indicated the following properties that appeared <br />to be in violation of the same ordinance which deprived us from dividing our <br />property as originally proposed: <br />1. 2534 -2538 Ruth Street -- Garages are built between 66 feet and 69 <br />feet from the center of the Soo Line tracks. The railroad right - <br />of -way is 50 feet from the center of the track, but that leaves <br />a maximum of 19 feet for the back yard, instead of the 30 feet <br />required by ordinance. <br />