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 />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />November 2,2001 <br /> <br />Mr. Aaron Parrish <br />City Planner <br />City of Arden Hills <br />1245 West Highway 96 <br />Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Parrish, <br /> <br />My name is Jim Paulet and I am writing in regards to the proposed plan to develop the <br />Hamline Preserve, Case # 01-27. I live at the very southeast corner ofthe proposed <br />development area at 1285 Wyncrest Court. I share 127 lineal feet with the proposed <br />development site. <br /> <br />I am opposed to the plan for a number of reasons including but not limited to the <br />following: <br />1) The addition of another street between Amble Road and Wyncrest Court will add <br />congestion and safety issues to an already difficult traffic situation. <br />2) The proposed lots slope toward Amble Road and will add surfuce nm-offto the <br />properties to the northeast which are already experiencing water retention problems. <br />3) The proposed site will require two variances to existing zoning regulations because <br />the site is too small to support the development. The lot sizes apparently are shy of <br />city code for low density residential sites and the development will require a variance <br />for a private road because it carmot support a regulation city street. These should <br />serve as red flags to you, the planning commission and the public safety officials that <br />the proposed development is not appropriate for the site. <br />4) It is my understanding that variances are supposed to be reserved for cases of <br />hardship and so far I fail to understand where any hardship exists. <br /> <br />A couple of questions about which I am unclear involve the set-back requirements for the <br />proposed private road adjacent to our property. It appears that the proposed road is only a <br />few feet from the property line. What are the requirements? I am curious how emergency <br />vehicles will be able to navigate the site with such a narrow, dead end road. Are tl1ese <br />conditions acceptable to the Fire Department? <br /> <br />While I am not automatically opposed to development when done in accordance with city <br />zoning requirements I feel this plan requires too many concessions to be acceptable. I feel <br />that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to the citizens of the community to <br />uphold the established zoning ordinances and turn down the proposal. <br /> <br />~~~ r~ . 1 ch. <br /> <br />ltPaulet CMA../VJf / <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.