Laserfiche WebLink
<br />values. The net result to Ramsey County and the City of Roseville will be a substantial reduction in <br />the potential taxable revenue generated by the affected properties. It is in no oneJs best interest to <br />create a substandard parcel out of the existing Albertson property. <br /> <br />The property in question can be put to a reasonable use ifused under conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. The property in question has been used, under official controls, as a single <br />family residence for 50 years-a very reasonable use. This reasonable use can continue unabated <br />v.r:i.thout any action by the City. It is a use that three families, including the Albertsons, have enjoyed. <br />By voluntarily purchasing the property, the next owner will undoubtedly also believe that a single <br />family home on a large lot is a reasonable use. If at sometime they change their minds, they have <br />several practical options for altering their situation while staying within official controls. <br /> <br />The City may argue that the "best and highest" use of this property is to have two houses placed on <br />it. This may be true but granting a variance is not necessary to achieve this goal. The goal may easily <br />be achieved by moving or demolishing the existing house. <br /> <br />To require that someone relocate or demolish an existing structure in order to put two houses on <br />two existing lots is not unusual, nor is it burdensome to the owner. Both the Cities of Edina and St. <br />Louis Park, for example, have told homeowners to move or demolish an existing house that straddles <br />two lots, rather than grant a variance such as being requested by the Albertsons. Requiring <br />conformance to existing codes is not arbitrary and it is not without precedence. Indeed, granting the <br />variance may be arbitrary, capricious, and without merit. <br /> <br />In conclusion, the fmdings of the City are without foundation in fact. By granting the variance the <br />City will alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not needed to correct <br />circumstances not under the control of the landowner, nor is needed to achieve the community <br />goals. On the contrary the variance will cause harm to the community. Granting the variance is not <br />in the interests of the City, nor in the residents who v.rill continue to reside on Asbury. As heir to the <br />adjacent property, I request that the City of Roseville deny the application for a creating a <br />substandard Minor Subdivision. <br /> <br />2r:~ <br /> <br />Craig Church <br /> <br /> <br />, <br />