2004_0223_Packet - 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 Broolcs. The majority of the issues are reasons � which I believe denial should occur: first by comparing them to Blacic 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: "Ti ha�� i� i� aa im��D�r achnn ac well �de �� nwclrr� t�?li�$�n f�4' and ��nar��rs t� cLm,� on oers�n w�i'le e�h_ancin� or e[�rich'�ng �nother via .,r$��n� �ec.#�nw�_sneciFyjp� pro�X setback. Setbacics were instituted and established into code as a safeguard of property values and uses for people such as mvself." Here-in attached as e�ibit to indicate the loss of value which would occur is this variance is allowed is a statement by a professional in the Real Estate Marlcet. It is a statement � 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 aga 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 fr� come to the same concCusions as I have: 1. The market value of 2476 Aglen will decrease due the diminishmentsof both privacy and the view of Central Park and Bennett Lake. A property appraiser has verbally given the same opinion; and, 2. Przvacy will be diminished for both the owner of 2476 Aglen and 998 Brooks to an extent that will impact the peaceful enjoyment' of both proper�ties. 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, c�nd 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 al�n to the setback limitations now in e�stence??) 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: