CC_Minutes_2004_0510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Most of the homes in the neighborhood have two-car garages. However, because the houses are long, the garages typically consume only '/, to 1/6 of the front facade of the house. A two car garage on the proposed property would encompass at least 2/5's of the facade. A three car garage-typical in today's market-would consume over 3/5's of the facade. Again, such a house would be significantly different than the existing "character of the locality." Although the houses in the neighborhood were quite large for middle-class homes when they were constructed, homes today are even larger. The only practical solution to fitting a large home on the proposed small lot would be to orient the house on its east-west axis or to build a multi-storied structure. Either of these solutions would significantly alter the visual character of the neighborhood. Quite simply, granting the variance will create a smail lot, 2/3's the size of a conventional lot in this neighborhood that will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. It is not possible to construct a home, for today's market, on the lot being proposed and having it look like the other houses in the neighborhood. The conclusion, that the "essential character of the locality" v.rill be adversely altered by the proposed variance is the only defensible position for the City to take. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances created hy the landowner and are not um'que to the property, The Albertson situation is not unique, of the 18 houses constructed in Roseville as part of Arden Hills Number 3, three were constructed on multiple lots. Similar situations must occur throughout Roseville. Creating a substandard lot is a poor solution for the City, the neighborhood, and, frankly, the Albertsons. It is not in the best interest of the City to create substandard lots that will be perpetuated indefinitely. Indeed, although it is an easy solution for correcting the predicament that the Albertsons have voLuntanfy created for themselves, it is not even in their own best fmancial interest. The original owners, elected to place the house where they did. The two families that subsequently have occupied the property elected to live at 3103 Asbury, in part, because of the large lot and its setting, as well as the house. The original owners, who had only one child, used the large yard to create beautiful gardens. The families that followed had above average-sized families (even for the 1950's and 1960's) offour and five children. They used the large lot for recreation and entertainment. To fInd that the voluntary decisions made by landowners as "not being created by the landowner," is inappropriate and is not defensible. Although flllancial consideration cannot be a reason for granting a variance according to state statute, it seems to underlie the City's findings that the "plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner." The plight of the landowner is only that he is currently unable to maximize his investment in his property. There is no issue related to health, safety, or general welfare. The only issue is financiaL This is not a defensible concern of the City. Furthermore the proposed subdivision is not in the best interest of the current owners, future owners, adjacent neighbors, nor the City of Roseville. According to the Ramsey County Assessors Office, the land that constitutes Albertson's two existing lots is worth $141,700 for taxes payable this year. The house is only worth $81,200. For their neighbor's, the situation is reversed. The land my mother's house sits on is worth $79,100 but the 50 year-old house is worth $114,600. Any developer, looking at this situation, would move or demolish Albertson's existing house to construct two homes on the existing lots that would probably sell for well over $300,000 each (or one large home on one lot for perhaps $450,000 to $500,000). By arbitrarily creating one small and one large lot, the proposed variance will probably result in the two lots being permanently undervalued. It is also likely to adversely impact adjacent property