My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 11-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:27 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />'< <br /> <br />(t.~: D L I: ' October 30, 2001 <br /> <br />e,ve the unders[~;:dj ~t ~e~~;~-petition the City of Arden Hills to reject the proposed Planning Case #01-27 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 />e <br /> <br />e <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 />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 nf 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. If one 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). Mnch 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 />Name <br />"\ <br /> <br />Si nature <br /> <br />Addre . <br /> <br />\')\; ~"'\o\, t <br /> <br />Dt <br /> <br /> <br />) <br />...-\ -, <br /> <br />\\'1" v\ <br /> <br />",\~ ,1">...._.~, '.. <br /> <br />/,,- -. <br /> <br />c./d/i-/-6c <br /> <br />Pel <br /> <br />i;/d(5:.L~ <br /> <br />//-,1 ~6/ <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.