My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02925
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2900
>
pf_02925
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:24:12 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:53:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2925
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1199 JOSEPHINE RD
Applicant
SELLARS, STUART AND CAROLE
Status
APPROVED
PIN
032923140007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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 />07/05/1997 09:55 <br />.... <br /> <br />5124903245 <br /> <br />CAROLE W SELLARS <br /> <br />PAGE 01 <br /> <br />;- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />July 6. 1997 <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Kim Lee, City Planner <br />Rosevtlle City <br /> <br />Fax: <br /> <br />490-2931 <br /> <br />Phone: 490-2236 <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Stuart and Carole Sellars <br /> <br />Dear Kim. <br />Thank you for you T fax of 7/3/97 concerning our application for a <br />variance. Wr. were very disappointed in the T~('ommp.ndattons as outlined in <br />the "Request lor Planning Commission Action- particularly since you and <br />Gordon BcsC'th had both indicated the ltkel1hood of approval for our request. <br />Perhaps the architect got carried away a bit and did not illustrate what <br />W~ h~rt In mind tind hopefully that is a factor at this time. <br />There are several factors which are important to us and include the <br />follow1ng: <br /> <br />1. we wish to retain a building to act as a vIsual barrier to overlooking <br />the property next door. Removal of the accessory building and adding an in. <br />Une addltton would provtde too open a view and lessen the Wind protection <br />presently afforded by the eXisting structure. <br />2. we believe the in-line addition would not provlOp. thp. kind of <br />lIVing/working space we envisioned for office/solarium. <br />3. we planned an addition that would be in line with the neighbor's <br />house. extending a similar amount in front of the main house. <br />4. w(' planned an extension that would improve the house. useabiityand <br />appearance. while trying to minimize the expense. <br /> <br />WithOl( I: t.he requested vartance we need to relook at how best to use the <br />existing stnlcturc, If it is impractical to provice a pennanent joining of the two <br />existing buildings. can they be jOined by canvas or other flexible joints? <br />Presumably we don't need a variance to upgrade the existing accessory bulldlng <br />with insulation? <br />Again. I'm not surc we would have proceeded with the request for a <br />valiance. spent the money on the application or hired an architect 'fyou wouJd <br />have indicated anything other than a positive response. <br />We believe we need to delay the request for a variance to another meeting <br />to rp.r.ol1~jrl~r how to present our case differently. Attached is OUT response to <br />the comment.s supplied in your fax. <br />I will call you Monday, July 7. to discuss the next step. <br /> <br />Yours Sincerely, <br /> <br />Carole and Stuart Sellars <br /> <br />--------- --- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.