Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Lee W. Cunningham <br />1320 Nursery Hill Lane <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br />(651) 628-4093 <br /> <br />September 5, 2001 <br /> <br />Mr. Michael Cronin <br />City of Arden Hills <br />4364 W. Round lake Road <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br /> <br />RE: Proposed variance - 4420 Hamline Avenue North <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Cronin: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Please timely direct and submit the following to the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission and City Council, as is appropriate, in the above captioned matter. <br /> <br />For several reasons I find the proposal surprising and unsustainable. <br /> <br />1. To have a developer propose a subdivision of property that is long <br />established in its present form does not seem to have merit on its face. <br />2. The lot was owned and established by the original owner of much of the <br />area in which it is located and would indicate an awareness even by that <br />owner that no further subdivision contrary to the ordinances should be or <br />in fact was anticipated. <br />3. The new owner of the subject parcel was well aware of the nature of the <br />surrounding residential properties, that the ordinances and existing layout <br />precluded any expectation of subdivision, and that such subdivision would <br />create property unlike that of the area when it was acquired. <br />4. As with all properties along Hamline Avenue there is a "buffer" portion of <br />the subject lot which is perhaps 40-50 feet which, due to its proximity to <br />the active road, is unusable. When this is "removed" from the existing <br />parcel it leaves well under 20,000 square feet to the lot. <br />5. The footprint of any home comparable to most of the homes in the area <br />would not fit on the proposed subdivided lot with out being more crowded <br />and obtrusive when compared to the long established homes in the area. <br />6. With (or even without) consideration of #4 what is proposed are quarter <br />acre lots. Effectively useable lots of under a quarter acre would result. <br />The rather massive difference in density, appearance, affect, and livability <br />of such property compared to the nature of the property around it with 1/3 <br />acre and larger lots is well recognized both in fact and in law of this state. <br />(I unfortunately owned a development parcel adjacent to the property in <br /> <br />e <br />