Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FUG 15 '94 09:41AM PET, EELL,COI'IY,JEI'ISE <br /> <br />P.2/4 <br />~~ <br /> <br />,,7'7'QIINIt)· A7' LA'" <br /> <br />IIIIOAIIWAY ~ IftST <br />1300 OOOWAfllaT. NI- IIa.. SI!>O <br />M.NNC...POc.... UN s....! <br />e'~~"·S31' TILel'MOMi <br />eI2/nl'''10 'Alt <br /> <br />DENNIS L. SMITH <br /> <br />Augußt 11, 1994 <br /> <br />BY FACBIMILg AND U.S. MAIL <br /> <br />Ms. Caroline Bell Beckman <br />Attorney at La.w <br />3000 Linooln Centre <br />333 South Seventh Street <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402 <br /> <br />Re: Chuck Kadrie <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Dear Ms. Bell: <br /> <br />This letter is essentially identioal ·to one forwarded to Mr. Robert <br />Bellon September 23, 1993. In an earlier telephone convereation <br />I had promised Mr. Bell that I would forward to him a summary of <br />our position concerning Mr. Kadrie's application for a building <br />permit and subsequent application for a variance. I fipnly believe <br />the applicable ordinance cannot support: the position taken by City <br />staff on this matter. I believe this was also the opinion of <br />Daniel Wall, the only attorney on the planning commiseion. I would <br />great.ly appreciate any time you could devote to a revie", the <br />enclosed correspondence. For purposes of clarity, I have adopted <br />the organization structure presented by City planner Michael Falk <br />in his report to the City Planning Commission on September 8, 1993. <br />OUr position may be summarized as follows: <br /> <br />DevelOj?ment Summary <br /> <br />Mr. Kadrie's home is located at 1281 Josephine Road, and was built <br />in 1967. The home was constructed with two decks, one at grade <br />level and one on the first floor le"Y'el. The principle structure is <br />located 37 feet from the shoreline and the at grade deck is located <br />15 feet from the shoreline. In 1988 Mr. Kadrie applied for and <br />"'received a shoreline permit to locate an addition between the house <br />and the free st~nding garage. This structure was closer than 7S <br />~ feet from the shoreline.' The provision of the zoning code <br />oX ~ requiring a 75 foot setback was not applicable because the addition <br />~n ~'rJ' was a 8ubstandàrd use (18.250). The only reetriction on property <br />D\Y characterized as a substandard use is that expansion of the <br />~:r "øubøtandard dimension- of the "substandard use" is forbidden. See <br />(þ)T "Sec. 18.250) II.... any structural alteration or addition to a <br />n,~ substandard use which will increase the substandard dimensions <br />v shall not be allowed. II Clea.rly the substandard dimension - as <br />