pf_03536 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Planning Commission From: John A. Berkner, Owner & Resident 2476 Aglen Street Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Additional Commentary to Planning File 3536 I submitted a synopsis of why a variance should not be granted for proposed Westerly expansion of 998 Brooks. The majority of the issues are reasons by which I believe denial should occur: first by comparing them to 'Black Letter Law' as quoted by staff in their report (as well as here-under listed in bold); and secondly, by applying Law of Equity (defined in ordinance below as "substantial justice". Further, material State Law governing this matter was also presented: "That it is an improper action as well as an improper application of law and legal powers to damage one person while enhancing or enriching another via waiving sections specifying property setbacks. Setbacks were instituted and established into code as a safeguard of property values and uses for people such as mvself." Here-in attached as exhibit to indicate the loss of value which would occur is this variance is allowed is a statement by a professional in the Real Estate Market. It is a statement by a prominent Realtor quite familiar with 2476 Aglen; She was the owner and resident of that property for 15 years before selling it to new owners three separate occasions. [She also was denied a variance to alter that home because of the impacts to 998 Brooks.] The last sale, to me, occurred 10 years ago. Its location, view (including of contiguous neighbors), seclusion, and the suitability of its office as a base for my business had major impact on my decision to purchase and the price I paid She has come to the same conclusions as I have: 1. The market value of 2476 Aglen will decrease due the diminishments of both privacy and the view of Central Park and Bennett Lake. A property appraiser has verbally given the same opinion; and, 2. Privacy will be diminished for both the owner of2476 Aglen and 998 Brooks to an extent that will impact the 'peaceful enjoyment' of both properties. She noted that with the extensive hours of time that I spend gazing over the Park and the Lake such an addition would not only eliminate my view, but would result in "eye- to eye contact" between myself and the other homeowner (or her guests). This would create a major breach of privacy and enjoyment, and would likely result in a future variance request to alter fencing --(since 'enclosure limitations' have supposedly been attached by staff. (But aren't these enclosure limitations akin to the setback limitations now in existence??) In the Variance review submitted by the Community Development Staff, section 5.5 listed in bold the governing Roseville Ordinance pertaining to the granting of a variance: