My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01901
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1900-1999
>
pf_01901
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 8:55:56 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 8:55:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1901
Planning Files - Type
Minor Variance
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
RE: Martin & Jean McIndoo <br />2598 Charlotte Street <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />Application for a minor variance on our driveway <br />We have liL�ted below those hardships we believe give us just cause to <br />extend our driveway to the north, closer to our property line. <br />1) If we were to extend our driveway to the south it would be in line <br />with the breezeway of the house, which would mean tearing out the <br />concrete patio in front of the breezeway. A car parked outside the <br />breezeway would defeat the purpose of a breezeway and would not look <br />aesthetically pleasing, therefore reducing the value of the property. <br />2) We purchased the house at the end of July 1987, and had planned to do <br />some landscaping in front of the breezeway and along the southside of <br />the driveway. We have planted two trees in the front yard, but with <br />the la.k of rainfall and the unusually hot summer we decided to <br />continue with the rest of the landscaping next year. Extending the <br />driveway in this direction would prevent us from doing so. <br />3) Extending the driveway to the south would place the driveway on top <br />of the sewer lines, which would be more costly to repair if needed. <br />4) Since the driveway was double: wide when we originally purchased the <br />house in July 1987, and advertised as such, the previous owner <br />evidentally had no knowledge that the driveway wus in violation of <br />city code, and had been so for 20+ years. (Our neighbor verified that <br />the driveway was in this condition when the previous owner purchased <br />the house). Notification of this code violation should have been <br />made at some point during this 20 year period. As prospective home <br />buyers we were unaware of any city code violations and the double <br />wide driveway was a selling point to us when contemplating the <br />purchase of the home. <br />6) A final statement: We are first time homeowners. We have had many <br />ideas for making our house look nice within the neighborhood we live, <br />and would not do anything to depreciate the value of the house, the <br />neighborhood, and the City of Roseville. We feel that extending the <br />driveway to the south for the reasons listed above would be worse <br />than extending it to the north. Also, the old driveway has been torn <br />out, new limestone has been put in and the only thing needed to <br />complete the job is the asphalt. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.