pf_03016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

:~. )~ r- l: . ~'.. .. . ': ~ . . I J~__ . \ j ".> 1 ~ . f \ , \ 'd 5jl9t(g 1?);;lb MEMO TO: Kim L. Lee, AICP City Planner - City ofRoseviIle FROM: Randall and Marybeth Dyson 192-t71& / 2474 ChurchiJI Street Roseville, MN I. DATE: Monday, May 18,1998 RE: Minor Variance Request - Attendance Minor Variance Request MTG Last Thursday, 5/14/98, we received notification ofa meeting of the Roseville Minor Variance Committee at which our attendance was mandatory for consideration of our request for a minor variance for a parking stall adjacent to our driveway. We have made every attempt to be available to attend this meeting but upon such short notice may be unable to be present. My husband, Randall Dyson will attempt to attend if his mandatory participation at jury duty downtown St. Paul releases him in time. For me, Marybeth Dyson, I have been unable to find a work substitute to replace me in my evening duties as therapist at Mercy Hospital. In addition to these constraints we have three children at various daycare arrangements that will need to be picked up by 5:30 pm. Needless to say we may not be in attendance due to negligence, however short notice, work and childcare difficulties may make our presence unavoidablely impossible. We have been in communication with Mr. Baron Behning, Project Co-ordinator, on several occassions. He indicated he would resubmit our variance request having physically seen our property and believing such requests have been granted in the past. Mr. Behning indicated that the original drawing of our gravel parking stall was incorrect in it's measurements. Please let me review below the reasons for our request: 1) The parking stall allows us parking space on our property not on the street. The sta1l is sufficient in length and depth to provide space for our station wagon with room to spare before reaching the street. The stall was present upon the purchase of our home in 1995 and is utilized with approval of our neighbor Mr. Gene Heuer and his wife. (Please see written document already submitted) 2) Lengthening the parking stall would necessitate the removal of a very large evergreen tree. This would be undesirable for both property owners. 3) Reconstructing the driveway with additional parking to the south would mean complete redesign of the front entry to the residence at totally unfeasable expense. In addition, the entry was just relandscaped last summer.