pf07-036 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� • � 5.3 A subsequent building permit (#A9901960) for an addition to the rear (west) of the G attached gazage showed the addition to be approximately 17 feet from the south property 3 line. Consistent with building permit application submittal requirements, this document <t was a site plan and not a survey, and did not correspond with the 10/26/1995 survey, 5 which showed that the rear of the previous garage (prior to addition) was not more than t� 12 feet from the south property line. � 5.4 The original building permit (i.e., documents contained therein) included a note, stamped � in red, that the driveway must be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the side property 9 line. The permit for the addition to the attached garage included a similar note on the site � o plan. Installation of the driveway and any driveway expansion would have required a � r separate permit (i.e., in addition to the building permit for the house/attached garage); �� staff was unable to locate such a permit. � 3 5.5 The survey for Parcel "B" (dated August 26, 1996 by E. G. Rud & Sons) submitted with ��t the building permit application for the Barrett property (Permit # A96000867) contained i s property boundaries and legal descriptions consistent with the 10/26/1995 survey; but � 6 again, both of these surveys failed to match the information contained in the approved �? and recorded survey of the properties. � s 5.6 Based on the surveys and the information provided for the building permit applications, � �� both principle structures appeared to meet the required setbacks established in Section zo 1004.016 of the Roseville City Code. Because there is no permit on file for the Kurtz � i driveway, however, it is unclear whether the City approved its location. �2 5.7 On or about May 22, 2007, Community Development staff received a Certificate of ?3 Survey by E. G. Rud & Sons dated November 21, 2006 regarding the Kurtz and Barrett 2� properties. This new survey was created to determine whether (and to what extent) the �5 Kurtz driveway encroaches onto the Barrett property. The survey indicates that the Kurtz �6 attached garage was originally constructed 2.8 feet from the south property line (the ?7 property line shared with the Barrett parcel), that the driveway extends over the property 28 line (shared with the Barretts) by a distance ranging from 7.4 feet on the east and to 12.4 z9 feet on the west; and that the garage addition was constructed approximately 6 feet from 3o the south property line. 31 6.0 STAFF COMMENTS �2 6.1 Because the surveys of October 26, 1995 and August 26, 1996 are consistent with each 33 other but are at odds with the data on file at Ramsey County, staff can only conclude that �a the location of the home on the Kurtz property was based on incorrect information. While � 5 this occurrence is not the fault of either of the applicants/property owners, it has created �6 two non-conformities — a 7.2-foot encroachment of the principal structure into the :s� required 10-foot side yard setback and a 5-foot encroachment of the driveway into the �s required 5-foot side yard setback — as well as the encroachment of the driveway onto the 39 Barrett property. =�0 6.2 The requested LOT LINE CORRECTION proposes to realign the shared property <�t boundary 7.38 feet in a southerly direction to be consistent with the (apparently �� erroneous) surveys used for the location and construction of the existing homes. Because PF07-036 RCA 072307.doc Page 2 of 3