pf08-011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� March 30, 2008 Patrick Trudgeon 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Trudgeon: � RECEIVED APR 0 2 2008 I write to appeal your denial to my setback request. I have decided to revise my request to encroach only 3 feet further, instead of the original proposed 5 feet and not to extend toward the south side beyond the current structural wall line. According to your response (1), you felt that the requested addition was incompatible with the existing footprint of the house and the neighborhood. Thus, I modify my request as above. You also needn't worry about an unusual appearance from the street view. I plan to plant trees to cover the corner of the north and west sides of the extended walls. People passing by the street will not see the bare walls of the house and will not be concerned with the shape of the house. According to your response (2), the setback permit was originally designed for old houses built immediately after World War II in Roseville. I regret to read the statement in your response but no where else, neither in the Setback Permit Request form nor in the Roseville city website, is this explicitly stated. In fact, no staff in your office told me of the existence of such rule. The statement that I read is as follows: Qualifications: A Setback Permit is intended to encourage residents to upgrade and improve their properties while maintaining the overall character of the community and may be considered in lieu of a formal variance in situations where: states four conditrons that my case all satisfies. According to your response (3), you suggest another option, which does not provide a cost-efficient and functional improvement. Without the extension to the west side, the extended area to the backyard will be too narrow to offer any practical usability. Thus, I have suggested as above: no extension to the south side. I appreciate your extra time to re-consider my modified request. Sincerely, race Rhee