02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Tim Gladhill From: Sent: To:' . Subject: , Mark Hilliard [mdhilliard@umn.edu] Friday, November 13, 20091:32 PM Tim Gladhill " RE: Owner Response' to Alternative Location for Accessory Structure Tim, Ilook,ed over the proposed alternative location suggested your staff. This location is unacceptable for storage shed location for a long set of reasons which w041d NOT have been obvious to your staff who are looking at vertical aerial photography photos take'n in the fall with any leave cover to suggest the siz~ and locatiorl of the trees on the lot. I do NOT think the proposed alternative site is usable for a long list of reasons: . . .1. Building at'the proposed location would mean sacrificing 3 Red Oak Trees approximately 60-70+ years old apiece and a native plum~ree. The Oak trees are over 60 feet tall e~chand cutting down these existing trees would ruin the essential char~cter ofthe neighborhood and c~rtainly of my iot. . 2. Two of the trees you wourd require me to cut down lean over the house and it would be dangerous option'to carry out. (not to mention labor and cost)' .; 3. You also forgot to remember the path of existing utilities to the house. Your propo'sed alternative would require me to put concrete foundations over the sole electrical feed to my entire. You specifically mentioned before that placing , structures over existing utilities in NOT a desirable option. The existing power line you would have me build over is very shallow and relocating It to avoid damaging it is.- again -Iabor'and cost prohibitive. 4. .The existing slope you'describe as' "2ft" is much mOre like 3 - 4 feet over the length of the 22 feet shed I wantto build, .and.would require a, very large amount of fill to be brought into the site. The amount of fill required could helve a major . effe~t on the quantity of run-off drainage to my neighbor's lot which would not be appreciated I am ~ure! Fini:illy, we were specifically warned NEVER to bring in soil to, raise/lever soil levels over ANY of the Red Oak trees, when we first bought . the lot over 1(5. years ago by I~ndscapers and .horticulturists, as this a/most always result~ in quick death of such trees as .' they do best when their root systems are Close to the surface. As you wciuld see on the ground at my lot, not only would you need to CUT DOWN major trees with your alternative location, you would also h~ve to FILL o\(er the root systems of at. least 2-3 ott)er major trees. . 5. Finally, if you were t~ go stand'on the lot of my neighbor, t9 the EAST, Jeff Durant, you would also see that the proposedalterna~ive location would place the shed squarely in the views of his back patio, house windOWS and pool area. While I KNOW this isn't part of your legal concerns, it seems absolutely iIlogica~ to build in such. a "alternative" rocation whe,n a much more practical, safe, hidden, and less disruptive to natural drainage, location exists. . . . Again, if you want to visit the site again, I would 'like to be there. If you need pictures from the groun~ I have already sent you at least 5, but could send you more if you need them. . .' I hope I have made a' clear argument for NOT using th~ proposed alternative building location. " With all due' respect, I have been all over the lOt for months looking fora location that is the LEAST visible to neighbors, the LEAST disruptive and damaging to pre":existing trees that 'are part of the neighborhoods "essential character" and . woulde require the least disruption of the lot. That is the reason I picked the original building . location and the exact' reason I have paid the $600 to beghi the variance proGess.. . Mark D. Hilliard .Instructional DeVeloper UMN M~dical Education Program Mayo Building 8636- TC Campus ' Ph: 612-624-4046 ....(UMN Ext: 44046) Email: . mdhilfiard@umn.edu -.-:... -...:..:...... From: Tim Gladhill [niailto:tgladhill@ci.ramsey.mn.us] . Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:35 PM .' 1 29