Laserfiche WebLink
access to the sun. <br />From a privacy standpoint [p4], functionally, our windows are effectively floor-to-ceiling - including rooms like our <br />bedroom.[5] This is acceptable if woods are next door or people are at grade level - it's unacceptably public if <br />multiple houses are in the proposed locations. Legally, you can't knowingly be 'indecent' in a place where the <br />public can see you. Two new houses next door would require we get blinds. <br />But this isn't merely about blinds; if it were, this objection could (rightly) be ignored. This is not mere <br />inconvenience or me liking my 'view'. As I stated, if we put up blinds we are required to get a furnace (including <br />ducting, venting, etc in a house that is already finished). I've gotten quotes and the sum total of $26,895[p7] is <br />what would be required to maintain the viability of our home through the winter. We cannot afford either the <br />upfront nor the ongoing costs (especially given we paid a hefty premium to NOT have to do these things) and <br />would potentially have to move <br />It's worth noting that access to passive solar was noted as a reason for approval of variance in setback of a house <br />at siems court and arden place[p8] so Arden hills has a long standing position of valuing solar as well as it being <br />enshrined more recently in various rules and regs: it was suggested be part of TCAAP guidelines, the 2040 <br />comprehensive plan, the minimum requirements for Arden Hills and other places.[p9] <br />Beyond direct costs and impact to the viability of our home, the proposed stormwater plan includes basins so <br />close to some of the trees on my property that it would most assuredly kill them. <br />City code 1150.04 states "the City Council, upon review and after report of the planning commission, may <br />approve the subdivision or consolidation, upon compliance with the following conditions" with condition #3 being, <br />" the proposed division or consolidation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in <br />the area in which the subdivision tract is located." This this is quite injurious to my property, an adjacent tract... not <br />even counting the harm to the essential character of the area. <br />---- <br />[1] Memo_4 - staff notes <br />[2] May 3, 2006 <br />[3] Attachment C with property sizes... also in Memo_4 somewhere <br />[4] http://www.cityofardenhills.org/documentcenter/view/1344 <br />[5] Attachment F <br />[6] 03-12-07-R - city council meeting discussion of partial easement vacation <br />[7] PCP 06-07-2206 - Planning commission discussion of PC06-013. It's worth noting there is a file error on the <br />system taht caused these to the be notes for the previous month meeting. <br />[8] PCP 05-03-2006 - Includes plans and discussion of PC06-013 <br />[9] Attachment C, details, item #8. <br />[10] https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen3-13x.pdf <br />[11] At Jan 10 meeting, someone defined 'extreme topology' or 'extreme slope' for the shed case... and this is <br />steeper.