pf_02913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I '.___Paschke, Thomas From: Sent: To: subject: Dunn Angela [Angela.Dunn@Cop~amsey.MN.US] Monday, January 24,2000.2:50 , 'thomas. paschke@ci.rosevllle.mn.us 2125 N. Hamline Ave. Dear Mr. Paschke, Greetings! Per our conversation last week, I am wri.ting a letter exp~es~~gN the p<;>sitiAon of mRy hU~lbl andM'yp~~~~~~:inde:f ;~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~r~~% ;n Hamline Hamhne ve., osevl e. Th h . eventy Years in early 1997 from my father-in-law, Larry.Du~n. e. ouse IS s old being one of the original farm properties In Ros~vllle. When wek th h purchased the property we imn:'edia~ely began drawing plans to. ma e e ouse better suited for our lifestyle. Little did we kno~ that when, the Side b k street, Burke Ave was put in next to the hous~ In the 1950 s, our .set ac was reduced to approximately 15.feet. We.~ld not understand this concern until we applied for a permit to bUild an addition unto the back of the . property. We were told at that time that a vari.ance would be neede~ In order to grant a building permit. w.e be~an this endea~o~ by app.eahn~ to four of our neighbors for what I beheve IS termed. as a minor variance. We were successful in attaining two of the four signatures ~e needed. Of the other two neighboring properties, Harry Lockrem a~d Linda Lange, the residents of the property adjoining ours on the west, said .they wou!d only sign for a minor variance if we signed an agreement making a portion of our property ( 10 feet X 130) a conservation easement. This easement would have to be included on the title of our property and passed to any future buyers of the property. The other option we were given by them is to sell a portion of our oversized lot to them so she could make a garden. We refused any such offer and they refused to sign for the minor variance. Thus, we began the major variance process. Much to our dismay this process was very costly and time consuming. We also had the very unpleasant experience of having to fight tooth and nail with these particular neighbors regarding our property. Mr. Lockrem and Mrs. Lange (husband and wife) describe the root of their discontent to have been the driveway on our property that extends behind our garage unto Burke Ave. In 1997, the driveway was non-conforming because it was not hard surfaced. We had planned to hard surface the driveway that first year we owned the property, during the other renovations. The driveway is only non-conforming because of the surface situation. It is the appropriate distance from the property line. The Lockrem/Lange family was unhappy with this driveway because they say they were told buy my father-in-law that he would never put a driveway in that location. My father-in law does not substantiate this conversation however. A curb cut was made by the city crew during re.nova.tion of Burke Ave sometime in the 1980's. There is not any record of this being done. However, I have been told that the foreperson of this crew was a woman and recollect by personnel at the city engineering department substantiate this claim. One of my neighbors told me that she remembers this woman working on our curb-cut herself. I believe it may have been a in-field decision. I only bring up this point to reiterate that a city sponsored crew put in this curb cut. The city granted us a variance to update the property. Three conditions were included. Interestingly enough, not a single condition stemmed from the actual addition to the house. All three had to do with the driveway and the neighbors. In the interest of harmony the one condition required a six-foot privacy fence to be erected between the properties. Plantings were required also. It was also required that the driveway be hard surfaced and no more that 10 feet in width at the west portion. All of the above conditions were meet before October of 1997. One condition, however, was not met. We were to fill in the curb cut to 12 feet in length. We realized immediately after the variance was granted that this final condition was going to create a hardship for us. This hardship exists for several reasons. First, of all the contractors we had look at the property only one would do the project. The contractors were extremely weary of doing the project because it was on municipal property. Second, the one contractor who would do the project wanted to charge us $3,000. We could not afford that fee nor could we understand how a cement project that was 1