pm_030402 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

or full wall height. Member Mulder asked if the north wall could be staggered to break up a long wall; could the mass of the wall be reduced. (the proposal allows the Beans to retain the existing front entry). Will there be windows? (yes) The garage is 20' x 24'. Daniel Grundtner, 1768 Dunlap, adjoining neighbor to the north, explained he had numerous concerns: 1) Sets precedent for long variances - all except one house is set back 40 feet. 2) Disrupt good neighborly relations. 3) Change the character of the neighborhood - no house (except one) has a garage in front. 4) Blocks the line of sight down the street. 5) Blocks the sunlight through the windows along the south side - he added a car port to allow sun into the bathroom windows. 6) Will block southerly breezes. 7) Drainage will be affected along north property line with no slope. 8) Existing trees will be two feet from eves of garage - trees would have to be sheared along my property line. 9) Mold is located in his house - he is concerned about condensation, kept in check by sunlight and breeze as well as ridge vents. 10) This is a very large addition, too close to his property line, too tall. 11) Options for Beans, according to Mr. Grunthner: a) move b) construct a detached garage c) construct a double deep garage on south side d) add a "turn out" in the front yard e) leave "as is". He encouraged adherence to the City Code. He explained (via photo) how his south bedroom window, front door, and yard would look with the variance. He is concerned about livability of house if variance is approved. There being no further comment; Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Chair Duncan asked if a hardship is created on adjacent property is this enough to deny a variance. Thomas Paschke explained that each case must be reviewed on its own. The improvements, over time, will occur. Member Bakeman asked for standard size of a garage (usually 22' x 24' or more). Does the shed in the rear yard stay in the proposal? (yes) Member Mulder asked if a fence could be place along the property line. (yes, to front of building - 6.5 feet) Member Mulder asked who owned the trees along the property line. (neighbor) Could the City require replanting along the north property line? (Yes) Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Peper, to recommend approval of the request by Brian Bean for a 24 foot VARIANCE to Section 1004.01 E (Exception) and Section 1004.02D5 (Yard Requirements - Side Yard Setback) of the Roseville City Code allowing construction of living area and an attached garage at 1760 Dunlap Street, based on the findings in Section 5 and conditions of Section 6 of the project report dated April 2, 2003, with additional conditions: 1) garage window must match other windows, 2) additional landscaping done to break up the mass of the north building wall. Chair Duncan said he was concerned about harm to adjacent neighbor. Member Traynor said property use as proposed is reasonable. The Beans did not create the situation, but may alter the character of the residential block - it would be a change; Member Mulder's conditions help. Member Stone agreed with Member Traynor's comment on character impact. Thomas Paschke noted that lot coverage is a problem with all houses, but adding a second floor can be done without variances. The real issue is the garage and setback. Member Bakeman expressed concerns with two variances (not just one). Member Mulder explained that he could find no alternative except to move from the site. A two car garage is a minimum improvement. This solution is the best of the alternatives. The neighbor has no control over the air rights. Chair Duncan explained this may be similar to the shoreland fence obstructing a view or creating a visual impact. Member Peper explained that a second floor to the house could be moved to a five foot setback but then impacts the design of the existing house and entry.