CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Reply to Plarmers recommendations on Case#Ol-27 by Roger Aiken - 4360 Hamline Ave N. Recommendation One: There is no hardship as the present use as a single family is reasonable. The applicant still enjoys a a substantial property right. _ Comment One: "Suhstantial" is a subjective term that I consider to mean what has been historically allowed and customary on a property of this size given its location and proximity within the juncture of two large metropolitan areas. Generally accepted principles of fairness recognized by the community determine what is substantial and reasonable. One right given to property is the freedom to sell the property at a fair price in the market place. While this is not cause for a variance alone, it is one factor when determining equivalency of this property with others which have been developed with variances. City zoning status alone cannot define a "substantial" or "reasonable" use. Another common right is to repair and improve property. The existence of a large parcel attached to a single family dwelling creates an uncertainty as to the future status of the dwelling. Recommendation Two: Access does not conform to city standards? Comment Two: The original platting ofthese lots and subsequent changes create a natural hardship that runs with the land. These lots were originally platted in the 1930's and could not have anticipated current city standards or the circumstances of historical development. The lots present more than tl1e minimum required lot size and square footage. Other areas of the city are served by private roads. The fact that these lots are 'late' in the development pattern should not disquality lots that will fit well within the current neighborhood and be beneficial low cost contributors to the City tax capacity. The roadway presented will meet mandated setback requirements, safety and construction standards, be fully insured, and separately platted to an association. Reasonable variance according to past practice is appropriate. . Recommendation Three: Without the variance the proposed plat does not comply with code requirements. Comment Three: A given, however, at some point in time it would have qualified and it may also quality as a result of changes at some point in the future. Recommendation Four: Granting of the variances has the potential to adversely impact adjacent property owners. Comment Four: The potential to impact the adj acent property owners, is not documented or specified. Setbacks protect and buffer adjacent property owners. Drainage has already been established in previous engineering for neighboring projects. Grading impacts are minimal due to the elevation range on the property. Wetland impacts are allowed under the Wetland Conservation Act and are managed by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Any impacts to the neighbors proximity and view of open space should be avoided but this is not a recognized property right. There is no claim of adverse possession. A There are no tree protection ordinances in Arden Hills. There are no kno\VTI public safety or health _ risks in question.