My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03459
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3400
>
pf_03459
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 2:12:17 PM
Creation date
6/30/2005 11:50:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3459
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1760 DUNLAP ST N
Project Name
BRIAN T & JILL M BEAN
Applicant
BRIAN T & JILL M BEAN
Status
Approved
PIN
152923440025
Date Final City Council Action
4/28/2003
Planning Files - Resolution #
10090
Additional Information
LIVING AREA & ATTACHED GARAGE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 />Dear Mayor Kysylyczyn and Members of the Roseville City Council, <br /> <br />We would like to start by saying that this variance process has been an emotionally exhausting experience for all <br />involved. Having said that, we need to clarify some points about POTENTIAL IMP ACTS made by our neighbor <br />Dan Grundtner. <br /> <br />Our family has outgrown our small bungalow and even smaller 1 car (barely) garage. We came up with a plan we <br />thought would give us the needed space but still keep the essence of our house. We called the city to find out <br />setback rules and made our neighbors aware of what we had planned. Knowing that we needed the space, they <br />were receptive to our project. We hired a professional to transform our drawings into blueprints and refinanced <br />our mortgage to take out the necessary funding. It was at this point that we found out the information from the <br />city referred to new construction and not to OUR HOUSE and that we would need a variance. Then, much to our <br />dismay, our neighbor Dan started having reservations about the project that he hadn't voiced on the previous <br />occasions during our discussions with him. We were devastated. We have enjoyed a good neighborly relationship <br />in the past, but we do not agree on the potential impacts on Dan and his property. The following is our <br />assessment of the points Dan brought up at the April 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />* Sun and view to the South of Dan's property <br />Dan stated that our proposed garage addition would block the sun and his view to the South. Dan built a <br />carport approximately 10 years ago on the South edge of his property. There are also 7 pine trees averaging <br />approximately 25 feet high lining this edge of his property, which already obstructs Dan's view. (see photos #1, <br />2, & 3) Also, for about 10 YEARS, Dan parked a 30 Y2 ft., approximately 12 ft. high commercial Mack truck in <br />his South driveway. (see photos #4 & 5 ) However, last fall the City required it to be removed. He constructed <br />this driveway so he could park this truck off the street. This truck was parked there daily and blocked most ofthe <br />South view and sun from the front of Dan's house, until it was removed. It also blocked out view to the north <br />during the same 10 year time frame. Additionally, even with the 24 foot variance there will be an additional 24 <br />feet PLUS a 13-13 Y2 ft. boulevard for a total of almost 40 feet from the front of our garage to the street for sun <br />and airflow. We feel our 24 foot deep, 1 story garage would not block Dan's South view, sun or airflov.; any more <br />than a 30 Y:ft. Mack truck didfor the past 10 years. <br /> <br />On a similar note, Dan brought up some smaller points such as he liked to look out his front window at the <br />neighborhood. He liked to watch for his father to drive up so he could start putting on his shoes and be ready to <br />leave when his father arrived. He insinuated that because of our addition he would no longer be able to do this. <br />The granting of this variance would in no way alter his ability to watch for people to drive up to his home. With <br />Garden being the main thoroughfare and our neighborhood constructed in a "U" shape with Dionne and Lindy, <br />almost all traffic approaches from the North traveling South. This is the opposite direction as the addition we are <br />proposing. Also, he mentioned to us that he put a window in his carport (see photo 6 ) so that when the sun is in <br />just the right position, about 1 month a year, about 1 hour a day, on sunny days, he enjoys sunshine in his <br />bathroom. And that he likes to see his house as he walks home from Rainbow. He can still see his house ifhe <br />simply stays on the West side of the street instead of crossing to the East side. We do not feel our proposed <br />garage will have an adverse impact on Dan concerning any of these issues. <br /> <br />* Mold problems in the roof <br />Dan has had a problem with mold in his roof and is concerned that our addition would make it worse. By <br />his own admission Dan has had this problem for years and has been working to remedy it. We feel the proposed <br />attached garage will not impact this existing problem. Furthermore, the City Staff has strict drainage <br />requirements for such improvements and will require gutters to properly disburse rainwater. We also feel the pine <br />trees shade his roof much more than the single story 2 car garage, given their height and compactness. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.