pf_03482 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Section 9 includes 12 site conditions. Brent Jordahl has circled 8. The following circled items are not in compliance. Section 9, item g. The proposed project improves the aesthetics, covered storage, or the functional use of the site. We disagree. The layout of the contiguous lots are long and narrow; approximately 85 ft. wide by 150 ft. deep. The narrow width of the lot is not conducive to the addition of a third garage, adjacent to the side of the existing two car garage. The only three car garage on contiguous/adjacent lots was added to the rear of the existing garage for this reason. This garage addition was done by Mr. Jordahl's adjacent neighbor on the opposite side. Mr. Jordahl may not have approved of his neighbor entering the easement to make a side garage addition.. Section 9, Item i. The final building mass is consistent with that on contiguous properties. We disagree. The distribution of the building mass is going to be elongated on the garage side. The distance between structures as a result is less than on contiguous properties. The proposed garage would cause an alley like appearance between the houses. Section 9, Item j. The building or driveway expansion/addition does not place more vehicles adjacent to living quarter first floor bedrooms of adj acent structures. We disagree. The proposed driveway extension places vehicles significantly closer to our first floor bedroom. Section 9, Item k. The drainage and roof gutters guide water away from the structure and adjacent structures. This is a MAJOR disagreement. The proposed project diagrams from Sussel Corp. do not show overhangs or gutters in relation to the lot line. In very heavy rain, the water overload, (with this plan) would drop from the roof (which extends over our lot line) onto our property. No drainage plans were submitted. If current drainage methods, -extensions to the cutters-, are "the plan" , these extensions will be beyond the proposed footage and the water will flow directly on our property. Survey. A very narrow, loose, string imbedded in the grass and extending the 1'hll150 ft. length of the lot has been used by Mr. Jordahl for weeks to mark the lot line. When it broke, it was simply repositioned to a more convenient spot. Using this string as a guideline, stakes were positioned to mark the area for the new construction. This string has a built in bias that depends on who is using it. It can vary as much as two feet in the 150 ft length and still look straight. The beginning and end points are also in question. Ail plans in this area should be validated by a survey. The conclusion to this application by Mr. Jordahl mentions his need to house his collector car, however an additional workshop is also in the plans. The reason he has to build it in the easement area is so he does not damage HIS landscaping and sprinkling system. Better to ruin the neighbors and put them at risk. Future utility plans by the city would forcefuIIy be on our property as very little if any of the easement on their property would remain. We respectfully request this application be denied and further plans be monitored closely. Thank you k' -' 91 l J \ , &t/J-AA <-ryL r t/ U Kurtis G. Viggers and 586 Heinel Dr. RoseviIle MN. 55113 /'. /j/1r/ J .~--7 /1/ 1/_1 '-~//~ l?k/, ?//' -~~-'--cr~-="~c . /U~~ Y'~ bara A. Willett . . Page 2 of2