|
Developers:
<br />Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the
<br />homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within or effect the neighborhood. He hasn't proactively discussed ways to mitigate concerns of the
<br />neighbors nor has he attended any planning commission or city council meetings on the topic. What power does the city have to force his compliance once
<br />he no longer lives there? When he started and then abandoned his attempt to develop 3695 & 3685 together, the applicant left the half-started site in unsafe
<br />disarray: The foundations of the old buildings, concrete blocks and chunks of tar, damaged and deteriorating retaining walls, rebar sticking from the ground,
<br />utilities (for example, the fuel oil tank and furnace were just laying on the site), pipes, siding, desks, acetylene tank, tires, rolls of carpet, shingles, and
<br />literally tons and tons of other debris - either on the surface or buried in and around the old house location. The various re-grading of the site or removal of
<br />the retaining walls laid out in the conditions and agreements was not done. They also left a large, unsafe, hole in the ground as well as a half-demolished
<br />'under garage-floor shed'. After we purchased, excavating and cleanup of the site was bid at more than 24k. ...and that was when he was staying next door.
<br />Imagine the disregard he will have when he moves away.
<br />Richard Kotoski, the applicant, realtor, and only person that has attended any city meetings on this, has done (or attempted) this in multiple places in the
<br />immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The 3-property subdivision up the road on Thom that he was
<br />responsible for was not finished according to the original plans, has grading and erosion issues, and the current owners of that subdivision say it was a
<br />mistake to split it into 3 rather than two[18]. I believe Kotoski has found an area of Arden Hills with large lots that is, through trick of history, mistakenly
<br />zoned R2 -- and he's systematically exploiting it. (this proposed development could not happen in an R1 district because the setbacks are slightly larger...
<br />and this plan is code-minimum on all sides with only a foot or two to space across all three lots) Current city council members seem interested in rezoning
<br />this area specifically to avoid these issues.
<br />I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area or following through on the myriad long-term issues) and
<br />Kotoski's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly and minimal thought would go into what's best for the city/area.
<br />Property Sizes:
<br />Previous attempts to split lots in this immediate area have resulted in comments from the public, planning commission, and council about density[2][7] as
<br />well as being less willing to split a property "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly currently is. In 2006 [7] a
<br />development including both 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Road was proposed with less density on 3685 (it included the same total number of houses, but
<br />included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it then - many are the same now, but worse.
<br />The future use plan labels this area "low density residential" and the average lot size of the Rohleders Home and Gardens from E2 to the train tracks is 1.32
<br />acres.[14] As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly
<br />doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, people can barely see neighboring homes from their back yards. This area is unique within Arden
<br />Hills.
<br />These lots are skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide.[3] It flares at the road by including the lift station easement to meet the minimum width rules.
<br />Removing the lift station land, it's only actually 31 feet wide at the road. Lot 2 isn't much wider in the back and has even less functional road frontage if you
<br />take out the wetland (it's so tight the only solution was to run the driveway through the lift station easement directly on top of the main city sewer). The fact
<br />the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation and address of their home so it fronts
<br />Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this over-development.
<br />These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-
<br />constructed retaining ponds. [3] While not 'small' overall, the smallest lot includes the proposed, smaller, lift station easement and is still 45% easement by
<br />land area (leaving less-than-R2-lot-size-minimum square footage of about 10.5k sqft buildable land, in two separate sections) and lot 1 is actually 74%
<br />easement or wetland (and only contains 11.3k sqft of buildable land, split into 3 separate sections).
<br />These lots (.9, .46 and .49 acres - lots 1 and 2 being most easements) fall very short of the average property size on New Brighton Road from near the
<br />corner of E2 to the train tracks, which average 1.32 acres with minimal easements... all but 3 of those are larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81
<br />acres). [14] If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres.[14] Lot 2 and 3 would set the new standard for the
<br />smallest of these properties by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. (though there are some commensurate and smaller lots
<br />around the corner and further up Thom drive)
<br />The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and has felt that cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the
<br />city. Denied case PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kotoski, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about by splitting 2015 Thom Dr....
<br />which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. With the denial of that case, specifically, the commission stated that "Density was not the
<br />objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use exists in its' current state".
<br />Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built
<br />on." [1] and Tim, himself, when asked by he wasn't putting homes in these locations in a previous application for development said that much of the lot
<br />[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
<br />room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this is not a property that should have 3 homes on it.
<br />While they fit the R-2 minimums (but would not meet R1 minimums), they are too cramped for the general character of the area, don't fit in at all with the
<br />surrounding properties, and the myriad of issues uncovered in my research for this document are directly due to the overdevelopment of this parcel.
<br />Splitting this land into two would be a shame but plans could be made that mitigate almost ALL of the problems raised in this document or by the many
<br />other members of the public that have written or spoken against this development.... splitting into three, however, is an absolute travesty in so many ways.
<br />Page 11 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision
<br />3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html
|