My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02780
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2700
>
pf_02780
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:09:59 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:40:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2780
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Address
674 COUNTY ROAD C W
Applicant
KETTLER CONSTRUCTION
Status
APPROVED
PIN
012923110018
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
293
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 />,~ .1". <br /> <br />(jwJJ g ~ & 0ffflJ <br /> <br />GENERAL CONTRACTORS <br /> <br />QUALITY BUILT HOMES <br /> <br />JERRY OR RICH <br />469-3650 <br /> <br />972 W, IOWA AVE, <br />5L PAUL. MN 55117 <br /> <br />City of Roseville <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, Minnesota 55113 <br /> <br />March 27, 1996 <br /> <br />Re: Request for Amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the new twinhome <br />located at 638/640 Overlook Drive, Lots 33 and 34, Block 1, Rosetown Ridge. <br /> <br />Dear Roseville Mayor, City Council Member: <br /> <br />I, the applicant, have prepared this written statement to request an Amendment to the <br />Planned Unit Development for the subject property, explain why the amendment is <br />necessary, and what hardships are present. <br /> <br />I, as a builder, hired a professional surveying finn, E.G. Rud and Sons, to prepare a <br />Certificate of Survey so that, along with a set of plans and specifications, I can obtain a <br />building pennit trom the City of Roseville to construct this twinhome. I place my <br />confidence in the expertise of the surveyor that they will place the building on the lot <br />properly and meet all the setbacks and other requirements that the city requests. I also <br />assume that, during the pennit approval process, that the city staff study the submitted <br />Certificate of Survey and, if no discrepancies are noted and approval is granted, then the <br />building can be constructed accordingly. <br /> <br />An honest error was made by the surveyor, which also went undetected during the pennit <br />approval process. The surveyor staked the back deck/porch 3 1/2 feet trom the rear <br />property line and assumed no consequences because of the way he interpreted letter # I of <br />the P.D.D. Agreement which states in part "That a 25 foot variance be approved allowing <br />decks to sit within 5 feet of the property line." The surveyor felt that the building could be <br />situated right up to the property line, with the 25 foot variance acting as the setback. <br />, The irony of this is that the problem could have been avoided by merely moving the <br />building ahead toward the tront setbac~ since the minimum tront setback is 20 feet trom <br />the front property line and the building is currently sitting 23 feet back trom the front <br />property line. <br /> <br />In order to remedy this issue and remove 1 1/2 feet trom each deck/porch, many time and <br />energy consuming steps are involved. New foundations would have to be constructed and <br />the porches would have to be dismantled and rebuilt. And because they are already <br />completed and ready for occupancy, the units have already been roofed, sided, insulated, <br />sheetrocked, trimmed, painted, heated and electrically wired. My estimated cost to <br />remedy this is approximately $18,000 to $20,000 or more. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.