CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . . Attn: Aaron Parrish Arden Hills City Plarmer 4364 Round Lake Rd W Arden Hills Mn 55112 fax 651-634-5137 Dear Sir: This letter is a summary of our conversation earlier concerning Plarming Case #01-27. I have not seen the specifics of the Case but as the immediate northern neighbor and owner of the 2 acre Lot 8 - Borstad addition - I am very familiar with the land and its possibilities, My own situation is that I have lived here since 1988. Since then several adjoining lots to Borstad Lot 8 were platted both to the North and South, The Council made some comments concerning where access might be available for Borstad Lot 8 on all occasions, however now the property has been effectively land locked by Council actions. The combination of these events has in my view created a hardship for both the Goserud and Aiken properties. It has also removed almost 3 acres of land from the possibility of contributing to an increasing tax base. Ideally both these properties would be developed at the same time or in a way that would integrate comparable properties into the existing neighborhood. Mr. Goserud and I explored some possibilities with a developer, but were discouraged by the City Plarroer. Specifically the developer could not take risks on what variances would be allowed, what would constitute a hardship, or how many actual units would be allowed? One of the primary problems is the roadway requirements, even under the PUD guidelines. My lot is only 134 feet wide and adjoins the Goserud property for approximately 400 feet. The additiona121O or so feet remains then only 134 ft wide, The placement of any kind of a cul-de-sac would not allow room for proper side yard and frontage setbacks. I believe that a legal hardship would run with this lot, no matter who owns it or what buildings are on it. During our exploration with the builder it became apparent that ifboth the Goserudl Aiken lots were looked at together-many creative possibilities exist, however hardships requiring variances would be required in any development scenario. At this time only three possibilities for .access are possible. (A fourth involves filling a wetland, creating a nonconforming lot and many feet of peat and fill). The first is a 20 foot lane to the North of 4360 Hamline for rear access to potentially subdivided parcels to the rear. The sideyard setback exceeds 40 feet. Another possibility is between the homes at 4360 and 4350 Hamline(approx 60 feet available setback). A twenty foot lane through this property line would result in tree loss, out building removal expense and new screening. This possiblility could also ultimately renovate the look of the properties, make them more compatable for infill type development and offer a better shared access offbusy Hamline Ave. A third possibility is tl1at the 4360 parcel may be accessed through a shared private road on the Goserud property. Such a variance was granted to the Amble's on Amble road only a few years ago. To my knowledge there are no other possibilities without the removal of one or both houses and the options that would be available then under the cnrrent lot configurations. I believe the Goseruds have a right to develop there property and share the benefits with the City. I also believe that I have the same rights and if the City chooses to further plat lots in such a way to preclude development on my property, then 1 should be legally entitled to seek exemptions from cnrrent subdivision code. S;-~u--u5/ 1(''''7/' / $-;~ Q~.~- y ? L 0 //"0'_ .hr'-1" L~1&i-,.. d/h rw",S-S-//Z