pf_03556 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

111 market-would consume over different than the "character of the Although the houses in the neighborhood were for middle-class homes when were constmcted, homes are even larger. The only practical solution to 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 neigh borhood. Quite simply, granting the variance will create a small 2/3's the size of a conventional lot in this neighborhood that ,vill 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" will be adversely altered by the proposed variance is the only position for the City to take. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances created by the landmx,1fler and are not unique 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 tl1at will be perpetuated indefinitely. Indeed, although it is an easy solution for correcting the predicament that the Albertsons have voluntarily created for themselves, it is not even in their own best f111ancial interest The original owners, elected to place the house where they did. The t'v:o 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 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) of four and five children. They used the large lot for recreation and entertainment. To find tl1at the voluntary decisions made landowners as "not being created the landowner," is inappropriate and is not defensible. .Although f111ancial 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 landm.v'11er." 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 tl1e 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 wo 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. Atry developer, looking at this situation, would move or demolish Albertson's existing house to construct wo 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 t\vo lots being permanently undervalued. It is also likely to adversely iJl1pact adjacent property