Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br /> April 17 , 1990 <br /> Page 11 <br /> 1 the project they presented to Mr . Burt March 23rd. These plans included <br /> the garage in front of the house for which three feet of wall had already <br /> 3 been completed when the order was issued to stop work on the project . <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Commissioner Franzese was told the house originally on the same lot <br /> 6 had only two bedrooms and was only a 20 by 25 foot structure in which <br /> 7 the basement was always cold . Mr. Pirino indicated that was the reason <br /> 8 why he and his wife had always intended that any replacement would have to <br /> 9 have a walkout basement. He insisted they had raised the terrain of the <br /> 10 lot no more than eight inches and indicated banking the dirt around the <br /> 11 foundation made the house appear higher than it actually was . However, <br /> 12 the applicant said the grade on the west side would be lowered still farther <br /> 13 to prevent drainage problems for his neighbor to the west. Mrs. Shun. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Mr . Pirino confirmed that there was an existing 80 foot long driveway <br /> 16 which could be utilized if had had to construct the garage in back of the <br /> 17 house. He also indicated that the proposed garage floor would be a foot <br /> 18 or 18 inches higher than that driveway. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Mrs. Pirino indicated they had been able to show Mr. and Mrs. McNulty <br /> 21 the plans for the tuck under garage but the fast pace since the latest ' <br /> 22 blueprints were drawn up had prevented a discussion of the changes with <br /> 23 the neighbors on either side of them. She confirmed that the structure <br /> 24 which they had moved from Roseville had not had a walkin basement and <br /> 25 reported the garage on that house had been destroyed in the move. <br /> 26 The petitioner contended the change from their old small $65 ,000.00 <br /> 27 home to the new 1 , 600 square foot home which she valued at $135 , 000. 00 <br /> 28 would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. She said when Mr. Hamer <br /> 29 had viewed the home in Roseville he had commented that he perceived <br /> 30 it would be "an asset to the community" . Mrs. Pirino recalled the Public <br /> 31 Works Director as only emphasizing the importance of maintaining a 30 <br /> 32 foot front yard setback with the project. The Commissioners attention was <br /> 33 also drawn to the fact that the homes on either side of the Pirinos were <br /> 34 the only ones in that block which maintained front yard setbacks much. over <br /> 35 30 feet. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Neighbors' Reaction to Variance Request <br /> 38 <br /> 39 James and Evelyn McNulty, 2921 33rd Avenue N. E. , expressed their oppositior <br /> 40 to the variance. Mr. McNulty indicated he had been sympathetic to the <br /> 4.1 Pirino ' s inability to upgrade their original home and their purchase of the <br /> 42 Roseville home to replace it on that lot . He said he had no objections <br /> 43 to the original plans or even to the ones with the tuckunder garage both <br /> 44 of which would still maintain the required front yard setback, assuming <br /> 45 the City staff and the Planning Commission would have input as to its <br /> 46 siting. However when he returned from a five week vacation in Florida, <br /> 47 he found the new home had been sited in such a manner as to shut off 40 <br /> 48 feet of air and view from his property and that their living room would <br /> 49 now be facing directly into the redwood deck on the back of his home which <br /> 50 of course, would reduce his privacy . Mr. McNulty added that he had also <br />