Laserfiche WebLink
<br />October 30, 2001 <br /> <br />ee the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Arden Hills to reject the proposed Planning Case #0]-27 subdivision. We <br />believe this proposal does not represent the type of thoughtful planning and desirable land development that is representative of <br />Arden Hills tradition in good city management. We take great pride in the quality of our current residential setting and the quality <br />of life Arden Hills provides. As our representatives for Planning and as our City Council, we appreciate and defer to your good <br />judgment in our joint request to ensure our neighborhoods remain well thought out and developed appropriately using uniform <br />standards as set by the city. <br /> <br />We submit the following concerns and objections for your consideration: <br />1. Past proposals of this site were denied for good reason. In fact, a past proposal to add a cul-de-sac off Amble Road was <br />rejected by the current applicant Roger Aiken. It would have added the road to Amble Road rather than the already busy <br />Hamline Avenue. This past proposal allowed for a designed surface runoff Both proposals, past and current, add <br />flooding potential to existing resident property since there is no storm sewer infrastructure for Amble Road. <br />2. This development most likely will cause problems with flooding. Three property owners to the north will be <br />detrimentally affected with added surface runoff. Developing 5 additional lots would be approximately 27,900 square <br />feet of new surface runoff based on comparable housing in this area. At present, there is a natural wetland pond west of <br />1304 Amble Road and a surface drainage ditch was made between 1284 and 1294 Amble Road to handle overflow. The <br />pond fills seasonally and will probably overflow back into one of the proposed lots. The existing "ditch" from that same <br />pond going between 1294 and 1284 Amble Road, floods on average two or three times per year. The additional hard <br />surface area of the houses, garages, and any other developments, would add to this existing problem, potentially flooding <br />into the existing residences. <br />3. The soils in this area of Arden Hills have required most homes to have sump pumps in the lower levels. These are <br />actively pumping water in the spring and summer. New housing adds to the amount of existing surface drainage <br />problems. <br />4. The addition of another road onto Hamline Avenue adds to an already dangerous road. In the next five years, it will <br />increase significantly with the potential developments on the vacant land north ofHwy. 96. The present situation creates <br />A traffic that backs up from Hwy 96 past all the side roads south ofHwy 96 even beyond the proposed road entrance. <br />_ 5. The creation of an "alley" type road (a road on both sides of small residential lots) behind some of the present property <br />owners would be undesirable for all residents as it doesn't blend with current road layout, is crowded and inadequate <br />compared to present development. <br />6. Equal consideration must be given to other Arden Hill residents. If this proposal were to be accepted, it would be logical <br />to then allow for the road to continue, if requested, by the residents to the immediate east. It would add immense <br />crowding in our residential neighborhood and would continue the trend of undersized lot sizes. Ifone variance is granted, <br />others must also be considered to equalize the process. <br />7. The property has been assessed and taxed appropriately LOW for a "land locked" parcel, and has not been an undue <br />burden for the present owners. To have a natural setting in our city increases much valued green space and adds to our <br />property value and quality of our lives as Arden Hills residents. This proposal lowers the value of existing homes. <br />8. According to Aaron Parrish, Arden Hills City Planner, the proposal requires a variance in lot size and road standards <br />(ROW). Much thought was originally placed on what are adequate standards for our residential setting. We support a <br />standard be maintained in residential lot sizes and ROW (Right-of-Way) to ensure Fire and Emergency access and <br />prevent over-crowding that affects our whole neighborhood. Many of us have had to work within or exceed building <br />standards with our property and we expect the same for new development. <br /> <br />Sifmature <br /> <br />Address <br /> <br />Date <br /> <br />'''. <br />-r <br /> <br />,,,,,~ <br /> <br />j ;", ~ <br />-]"\,1.( \"'"~ <br /> <br />1,;'.3, <br /> <br />1,I'l <br />\lV",F. <br />, <br />~. <br /> <br />, <br />, -, <br /> <br />.1-- t- <br />o \.....-." <br /> <br />(I ! \....:'-; <br /> <br />~, ; <br /> <br /> <br />16l, <br /> <br />W~n(i{s.t IT <br /> <br />II -Lf-()/ <br /> <br />-- <br />Ir","",,,,> I'v\ c;((\L <br /> <br />rJ ~___ <br /> <br />12..(/1 <br /> <br />. , ,~ <br />/1- '-1-- ) <br /> <br />y - C)) <br /> <br />17 ~- (- 'fI,/ <br />