CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

October 30, 2001 We the undersigned do hereby petition the City of Arden Hills to reject the proposed Planning Case #01-27 subdivision. We e believe this proposal does not represent the type of thoughtful planning and desirable land development that is representative of Arden Hills tradition in good city management. We take great pride in the quality of our current residential setting and the quality of life Arden Hills provides. As our representatives for Planning and as our City Council, we appreciate and defer to your good judgment in our joint request to ensure our neighborhoods remain well thought out and developed appropriately using uniform standards as set by the city. We submit the following concerns and ohjections for yonr consideration: 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 rejected by the current applicant Roger Aiken. It would have added the road to Amble Road rather than the already busy Hamline Avenue. This past proposal allowed for a designed surface runoff Both proposals, past and current, add flooding potential to existing resident property since there is no stonn sewer infrastructure for Amble Road. 2. This development most likely will cause problems with flooding. Three property owners to the north will be detrimentally affected with added surface runoff. Developing 5 additional lots would be approximately 27,900 square feet of new surface runoff based on comparable housing in this area. At present, there is a natural wetland pond west of 1304 Amble Road and a surface drainage ditch was made between 1284 and 1294 Amble Road to handle overflow. The pond fills seasonally and will probably overflow back into one of the proposed lots. The existing "ditch" from that same pond going between 1294 and 1284 Amble Road, floods on average two or three times per year. The additional hard surface area of the houses, garages, and any other developments, would add to this existing problem, potentially flooding into the existing residences. 3. The soils in this area of Arden Hills have required most homes to have sump pumps in the lower levels. These are actively pumping water in the spring and summer. New housing adds to the amount of existing surface drainage problems. 4. The addition of another road onto Hamline Avenue adds to an already dangerous road. In the next five years, it will increase significantly with the potential developments on the vacant land north ofHwy. 96. The present situation creates traffic that backs up from Hwy % past all the side roads south ofHwy 96 even beyond the proposed road entrance. 5. The creation of an "alley" type road (a road on both sides cfsmall residential lots) behind some of the present property . owners would be undesirable for all residents as it doesn't blend with current road layout, is crowded and inadequate compared to present development. 6. Equal consideration must be given to other Arden Hill residents. If this proposal were to be accepted, it would be logical to then allow for the road to continue, if requested, by the residents to the immediate east. It would add immense crowding in our residential neighborhood and would continue the trend of undersized lot sizes. Ifone variance is granted, others must also be considered to equalize the process. 7. The property has been assessed and taxed appropriately LOW for a "land locked" parcel, and has not been an undue burden for the present owners. To have a natural setting in our city increases much valued green space and adds to our property value and quality of our lives as Arden Hills residents. This proposal lowers the value of existing homes. 8. According to Aaron Parrish, Arden Hills City Planner, the proposal requires a variance in lot size and road standards (ROW). Much thought was originally placed on what are adequate standards for our residential setting. We support a standard be maimained in residential lot sizes and ROV/ (Right-uf-\Vay) to ensure Fire and Emergency access and prevent over-crowding that affects our whole neighborhood. Many of us have had to work within or exceed building standards with our property and we expect the same for new development. Name Si2'nature };AA._ ~-Z Address Date G-",yc/& '1 C-ha t 1: h-r[;Oh /2t:c>/liir!JeRf ' I/hk/ , 0t.UL- ..-~, .,-, .." ., .., /// (./,/?JL-'.<>^ /10 ,/,/-.J-d/ y I' /~";;i~>)"~~~) .. i ~ /L r~"'-\/~ i. l-- ~,,{7\ / /~3~()1 r I _ /t-- C'! . c.: