pf_03556 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Marie Churchward 3093 Street North Roseville, l'viN 55112 lYfr. 1110mas Paschke, City Planner City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Lvl1'I 55113-1899 Re: Comment on Planning File 3556 Variance to create Substandard Residential Parcel Dear lYfr. Paschke: I have reviewed the information you have supplied to my mother, the owner of the property south of the lots owned by the Albertsons, and request that you re-evaluate your recommendation to allow the requested variance. The variance is not the in best interest of the adjacent residents, future owners of the Albertson property, nor is it in the best interest of the City of Roseville. The three findings of fact, 1) that the parcel cannot be put to a reasonable use 'l.vithout a variance; 2) that the plight of landowner was not created by the landowner; and 3) that granting a variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood are in error and based, I believe, on several misjudgments. I believe that several factors were not adequately considered in your initial recommendation. i'dthough I have an obvious emotional attachment to my mother's adjacent property, I have tried to base my evaluation on over 25 years of professional land-use planning experience Ln the state of Minnesota and as the author of the Visual Impact Assessment process used by government agencies for land-planning and facility-siting throughout the United States, inclucling the National Park Service, Federal Highway Administration, and several state departments of transportation. If allowed, the proposed variance \vill adversely alter the visual character of the existing neighborhood; it will constrain, unnecessarily, future development; and it v.rill set a precedent that \,rill weaken the control the city has for regulating development. Contrary to the findings of fact: The proposed variance will adversely alter the ({essential character of the locality." My parents purchased their lot in 1951, choosing a neighborhood with large, 100 x 200 foot lots and a developer-enforced requirement that only single-story houses were to be constructed. They could have chosen smaller lots elsewhere in Roseville. They could have chosen a development that would have allowed multiple-storied homes. They did not and they paid a premium for this character. Although the official variance requested is only 16 feet, this is merely the legal variance. The actual variance from the "character of the locality" is 31 feet. At 69 feet, the proposed lot would need to expand nearly 50% to become a standard lot for this neighborhood. Such a lot would be significantly clifferent than the existing "character of the locality." _I). house on this proposed lot could only be 49 feet long. The houses on Asbury are 75 to 80 feet long and are oriented to the street. A 49 foot house would be only 61 % of tl1e size of the existing houses. Such a house would be significantly clifferent than the existing "character of the locality."