pf_02780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

--..---. .--.---- .~~ (jwJJ rJ ~~ & ~ GENERAL CONTRACTORS JERRY OR ~IC'" 489.3850 QI.,JAL Tv 1h...II..'" MO"'ES 972 IN lOW" "'I/f ST P""," MN 55117 City of Rose vi lie 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 March 27, 1996 Re: Request for Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the new t~inhome located at 638/640 Overlook Drive, Lots 33 and 34, Block 1, Rosetown Ridge. Dear Roseville Mayor, City Council Member: I. the applicant, have prepared this written statement to request an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the subject property, explain why the amendment is necessary, and what hardships are present. I, as a builder, hired a professional surveying firm, E. G. Rud and Sons, to prepare a Certificate of Survey so that, along with a set of plans and specifications, I can obtain a building permit ITom the City of Roseville to construct this twinhome. I place my confidence in the expertise of the surveyor that they will place the building on the lot properly and meet all the setbacks and other requirements that the city requests. I also assume that, during the permit approval process, that the city staff study the submitted Certificate of Survey and, if no discrepancies are noted and approval is granted, then the building can be constructed accordingly. An honest error was made by the surveyor, which also went undetected during the permit approval process. The surveyor staked the back deck/porch 3 1/2 feet ITom the rear . property line and assumed no consequences because of the way he interpreted letter # I of the P.U.D. Agreement which states in part "That a 25 foot variance be approved allowing decks to sit within 5 feet of the property line." The surveyor felt that the building could be situated right up to the property line, with the 25 foot variance acting as the setback. The irony of this is that the problem could have been avoided by merely moving the building ahead toward the ftont setbac~ since the minimum ftont setback is 20 feet from the ITont property line and the building is currently sitting 23 feet back ITom the front pr9perty line. In order to remedy this issue and remove 1 1/2 feet from each deck/porch, many time and energy consuming steps are involved. New foundations would have to be constructed and the porches would have to be dismantled and rebuilt. And because they are already completed and ready for occupancy, the units have_already been roofed, sided, insulated, sheetrocked, trimmed, painted, heated and electrically wired. MjTesnmitediOOSf.i:OY rre.~i\tlls]sWiftfrB~l'fly';i('1~8?i.6jrcJ:Slji6i0.]Ifioii6' ..Y!~:".~':-"---~-.-,,, "-r"t' .,. ,-- ----".;;-