Loading...
6.a Public Comment 9-3-2021 Letter #1 to City of Scandiaarkve and Zweifel, PLLC Attorneys at La� 11302 86"' Ave North Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone: (763) 450-1639 Fax: (763) 447-6458 September 3, 2021 Brenda Eklund City Clerk City of Scandia 14727 2091" Street North Scandia MN 55073 Re: Written Comments Opposing Variance Request for PID: 21.032.20.42.0003 Clients: Richard and Elizabeth Sandstrom 12937 Mayberry Trail N Scandia MN 55073 Dear Ms. Eklund: This office has been retained by Richard and Elizabeth Sandstrom in regard to the variance request for PID: 21.032.20.42.0003. My clients oppose the granting of a variance. The application for variance does not meet the requirements under Section 6 of the Development Code. The application does not demonstrate that strict enforcement of the 20 foot side yard setback requirement for buildings as is outlined in the Developmental Code would cause practical difficulties justifying deviation from the Code and grant of the variance. The application does not identify any unique circumstances to the individual property under consideration that would cause practical difficulties. The application does not demonstrate that granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of Code. The application does not establish that strict enforcement of the setback will create "Practical Difficulties" pursuant to the criteria of Section 6.4.: 6.4(l); The application does not propose a reasonable use of the property. The proposed addition could be placed in several alternate locations that do not require a variance, so the proposed use of the property is not reasonable. 6.4 2 • The application does not demonstrate that unique circumstances related to the property eliminate other locations for the proposed addition. The application does not indicate that the landowner is in plight due to unique property circumstances. 6.4(3); The variance if granted would alter the essential character of the locality. The neighborhood is characterized by homes that have substantial spacing between them. The 20 foot setback is in keeping with the open feel of the neighborhood. Granting this application for variance will alter that character and create uncharacteristic crowding of structures. 6.4 4 • The application does not demonstrate that a significant economic impact will result from locating the proposed addition in an alternate location where a variance is not required. 6.4 5 • My clients believe that the proposed variance and the resulting crowding of structures by placement of the addition where requested will substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The essential character of the locality would be affected and specifically it will affect my clients' property value. 6.4 6 • The application does not demonstrate that a practical difficulty even exists as other locations exist for the proposed addition. We do not reach the question as to whether minimum action has been taken to eliminate the practical difficulty. 6.4(7); The application does not indicate that alternative locations for the proposed addition are impaired or inferior in terms of sunlight access for solar energy systems. Accordingly, the application for a variance should be denied. Very truly yo s, G 45011613 ifel4mzlaw.us