My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02715
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2700
>
pf_02715
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:05:56 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:38:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2715
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
Address
1960 DALE ST N
Applicant
DOCKENDORF, DALE/VENTURA HO
Status
APPROVED
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
<br />~... <br />- ... <br /> <br />~16 <br /> <br />January 23. 1995 <br /> <br />Mike Falk. City Planner <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville. Minnesota 55113 <br /> <br />Dear Sir. <br /> <br />Your response to my complaint in my letter to steve Sarkozy <br />dated 12729/94 was completely unsatisfactory, and in fact <br />brought up further troubling questions. <br /> <br />If in fact, as you state, the minor variance review process <br />typicallY involves the notification of all affected contiguous <br />land owners, then in fact it was the responsibility of that <br />committee to notify me befo!~ accepting any plans that involved <br />a redefining of the front yard of the property and the granting <br />of a subsequent 10 foot setback variance. You stated that you <br />overlooked notifying me because this was a corner lot and the <br />Minor Variance Committee was redefining the front yard. Did <br />every member of the committee also overlook this notification? <br />Was there some ~ to push this process along. and if so, what <br />was it? <br /> <br />It's obvious to anyone that the only way this bEmQ will go on <br />this lot is as shown. facing Dale Street. rrherefore the notifi- <br />cation to my neighbor to the west is and was irrelevant. Since <br />when is a variance granted before ever seeing or studying the <br />building plans. This plan should never have been approved with- <br />out my notification, and, by your ~ rules. you know it. <br /> <br />Your letter belabors a side yard setback allowing a building to <br />be legally 5 feet from my property line. The likelihood of any- <br />one doing any~hin~ ~hat stupid on ~hat lot is remote. However, <br />for the sake of such convoluted reasoning, and in the event <br />someone did build a home facing the Carlyle right-of-way or <br />future street. I still wouldn't have a 61 foot wall of residence <br />with an in-roy-face stance 19 feet from my property line. Most <br />side yards have a garage. driveway,or narrow, minimal windowed <br />portion of the residence there anyway. <br /> <br />Most important of all, there are no consistent setbacks along <br />Dale Street. To make that argument here is both arbitrary and <br />capricious. . This hom,e, which overpowers this lot, could and <br />should have been built 10 feet west of its current location. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.