CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDE)) HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 7,2001 2 Tom Goserud, 4350 Hamline Avenue, summarized his letter to the City of Arden Hills dated Octoher 14, 2001 and stated he had two large parcels of land that were land locked. A Each pm'cel was 3-4 times the size of the neighhoring lots. He stated whatever type of - development evolved, the access would be from Hamline Avenue. He indicated he believed this type of platting would not he setting a new precedence in the City. He stated a similar platting was the Amble's Subdivision, and that had basically the same situation as he had. He noted it was his right to develop his property and to have reasonable use of his property, and he helieved they did not have reasonahle use of their land. He asked that the Commission approve the plat. Roger Aiken, 4360 Hamline Avenue, presented an aerial photograph of the property. He stated for a variety of reasons this was the time to address this matter. He stated they had been working on this proposal for over a year. He indicated this was the best use for this piece ofland from his point of view. He believed his neighbors had a distorted view of what actually had occnrred over the years regarding this property. Mr. Aiken presented to the Commission his written comments that he requested be recorded into the Minutes. With respect to staff s denial based on no hardship, he believed "substantial was a subjective term that he considered to mean what had been historically allowed and customary on a property of this size given its location and proximity within the juncture of two large metropolitan areas." He stated, "one right given to property is the freedom to sell the property at a fair price in the market place. While this was not the cause for a variance alone, it was one factor when determining equivalency of this property with others which had been developed with variances." He stated, "City zoning could not define a substantial or reasonable use." He indicated, "another common right was to repair and improve property. The existence of a large parcel attached to a single-family dwelling created an uncertainty as to the future status of the dwelling." With respect to staffs comments that the access did not conform to City standards, he stated "the original platting of the lots and subsequent changes created a natural hardship that ran with the land. These lots were originally platted in the 1930's and could not have anticipated cnrrent city standards or the circumstances of historical development. The lots present more than a minimum required lot size and square footage. " He stated. "other areas of the City were served by private roads. The fact that these lots were late in the development, should not disqualify lots that fit well within the current neighborhood and he beneficial low cost contributors to the City tax capacity." He stated "the roadway presented would meet mandated setback requirements, safety and construction standards, be fully insured, and separately platted to an association." He stated, "reasonable variance according to past practice was appropriate." With respect to staffs recommendation number three, he stated "that was a given, however, at some point in time it would have qualified and it might also qualify as a result of changes at some point in the future." With respect to staffs recommendation number four, he stated, "the potential to impact the adjacent property owners, was not documented or specified. Setbacks protect and buffer adjacent property owners. Drainage had already been established in previous engineering for neighboring projects. Grading impacts were minimal due to the elevation range on the property. Wetlmld impacts were allowed under the Waterland Conservation Act and were managed by the Rice Creed Watershed District. Any impacts to the neighbors' proximity and view of open space should he ~--- v'+"---'l..iA---' ,....\'..<\ -"'-~...~-':~~ . -." -, --, -. ..,,,,,'Y '" .,....... ') . .