03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Richard Kotoski, the applicant, has done (or attempteed) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision around 1978 Thom was not finished according to the original plans, promises to retain trees were not kept, grading was not done to plan causing erosion, drainage, and maintenance problems. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area) and Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly.. Previous Planning Commissions and City Councils have found this to be a bad idea: In 2006 the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] though I understand a plan allowing this was eventually passed that included my land and only one additional home in the 'backyard' of 3685 New Brighton Road. The plan that eventually passed included only one additional house on 3685 out to Thom, removed considerably fewer trees, encroached on the easement less (and only on one side - a request to expand on the other side to maintain access for lift station was made by city engineer and accepted), and involved much less complications and 'design by conditions'. (the proposed subdivision has 19 planning commission coniditions as well as a host of additional conditions from RCWD) During the discussions for the subdivision that was denied, they further found that while large enough, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] During that meeting, the developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot [through my property] because of lot size and topology [of the western side of 3685]". [8] Later in that same meeting, when challenged as to why the new houses were being put mostly on 3695 New Brighton Road, Tim, himself, said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] Injures my property and home: Homes placed in the proposed locations will require us to pay $26,895[p7] to maintain the viability of our home. We looked at this property and saw the nature, privacy, neighborhood character and density would work for us. Because of the tree maintenance plan the city has and the neighboring lots being fully wooded and 3685 already being fully developed felt we could count on privacy to the south / southwest. Further, from talking to neighbors, we learned that property had been more-or-less deemed undevelopable by the planning commission unless our lot was included when they gave a variance for a private road through our property in 2006. I've subsequently found that past city councils and planning commissions had issues with attempts to develop this land. Either way, we felt our expectation of having a private lot was very very solid.... enough so that we banked the viability of our house on it. We designed our house per various city guidelines and recommendations. We included all the recommendations for design that the JDA, city, and county, has been suggesting for years[p2]. Our windows are unique and were sized and located such that, combined with the other efficiency measures taken in our house, almost all of our heating needs comes from solar gains; we do not have a traditional furnace or venting system in our home.[p3] This is only possible if our windows have full solar access -- which means blinds or planted privacy walls closer to the house than a 23 degree angle angle are not an option. We bought this property specifically with this type of house in mind, knowing that to the south we'd have, and need to have, the privacy to give us the access to solar we needed. Everything was calculated, angled, sized, and situated according to an energy model that falls apart if we cover the east, south, or west-facing windows. To be clear, our house's viability in winter is dependent on clear