My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1987 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
10-28-1987 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2013 1:15:58 PM
Creation date
5/8/2013 1:12:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
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
June 2, 1987 <br />:nr..O; & <br />northwest Es ssociEted corsultEnts, inc. <br />Mr. John Kenna <br />212 Midwest Federal Building <br />50 East Fifth Street <br />St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br />Re: Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Gervais Shores Addition <br />File No: 758.09 - 87.31 <br />Dear Mr. Kenna: <br />At your request, I have reviewed the various information available regarding the <br />encroachment of the house across the southeastern property line of Lot 5. To <br />proceed in the manner illustrated on the attached exhibit, that is, to relocate the <br />lot line to make the house conforming, would require the following procedures: <br />• A subdivision, jointly applied for by both property owners, splitting the <br />triangular piece from Lot 5, and simultaneously adding it to Lot 4. <br />• A variance from the Subdivision Ordinance's requirement that all lots conform to <br />lot width standards of the Zoning Ordinance. <br />By your letter, I understand that, furthermore, a variance from Zoning Ordinance side <br />yard setback standards would be sought to allow construction on the newly subdivided <br />narrow Lot 5. <br />The Little Canada Ordinances lay out conditions under which variances may be consi- <br />dered, the criteria for which relates to pre- existing, non- economic hardships. From <br />a technical standpoint, the subdivision application fails these tests, since the need <br />for the variance required for its approval is a condition created by the actions of <br />one of the property. owners.. As a result, our technical recommendation would likely <br />be to not approve the subdivision or lot width variance. <br />The authority to grant variances rests with the Council, and I cannot comment on their <br />eventual course of action. If the Council were to feel, from a policy view, that <br />the subdivision and lot width variance were justified, we would strongly discourage <br />any further granting of variances for construction on the parcel. Our recommendation <br />would be to make this a condition of the lot width variance approval. <br />I hope this clarifies our stand on this issue. If I can be of additional assistance, <br />please do not hesitate to contact me. <br />Page 53 <br />4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925 -9420 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.