Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />.-. '. <br /> <br />(j~ q. ~ &: 0etIJ <br /> <br />GENERAL CONTRACTORS <br /> <br />QUAl..tTY BUILT HOMES <br /> <br />JERRY OR RICH <br />489-3850 <br /> <br />972 W. IOWA AVE. <br />5T. 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 minor variance for the new twinhome located at 638/640 <br />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 a minor variance <br />for the subject property, explain why the minor variance is necessary, and what <br />hardships are present. <br /> <br />I, as a builder, hired a professional surveying firm, E.G. Rud and Sons, to prepare <br />a Certificate of Survey so that, along with a set of plans and specifications, I can <br />obtain a building permit ftom the City ofRoseville to construct this twinhome. I <br />place my confidence in the expertise of the surveyor that they will place the <br />building on the lot properly and meet all the setbacks and other requirements that <br />the city requests. I also assume that, during the permit approval process, that the <br />city staff study the submitted Certificate of Survey and, if no discrepancies are <br />noted and approval is granted, then the building can be constructed accordingly. <br /> <br />An honest error was made by the surveyor, which also went undetected during the <br />permit approval process. The surveyor staked the back deck/porch 3 1/2 feet ftom <br />the rear property line and assumed no consequences because of the way he <br />interpreted letter # I of the P.D.D. Agreement which states in part "That a 25 foot <br />variance be approved allowing decks to sit within 5 feet of the property line." The <br />surveyor felt that the building could be situated right up to the property line, with <br />the 25 foot variance acting as the setback. The irony of this is that the problem <br />could have been avoided by merely moving the building ahead toward the ftont <br />setback, since the minimum ftont setback is 20 feet ftom the ftont property line <br />and the building is currently sitting 23 feet back ftom the ftont property line. <br /> <br />In order to remedy this issue and remove 1 1/2 feet ftom each deck/porch, many <br />time and energy consuming steps are involved. New foundations would have to be <br />constructed and the porches would have to be dismantled and rebuilt. And <br />because they are already completed and ready for occupancy, the units have <br />already been roofed, sided, insulated, sheetrocked, trimmed, painted, heated and <br />electrically wired. My estimated cost to remedy this is approximately $18,000 to <br />$20,000 or more. <br /> <br />1 <br />