CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 7, 2001 3 avoided but this was not a recognized property right. There was no claim of adverse possession. There were no tree ordinances in Arden Hills. There were no known puhlic safety or health risks in question." In summary, he stated he helieved that "hardships existed in several areas. As a long time resident of Arden Hills, he felt that a substantive and equivalent right to develop property within generally and ordinarily granted variances under City Code. If City rules were strictly construed in this case, they prohibit reasonable development without certain variances and thus constitute a hardship under the Arden Hills Sub-division code and Minresota Rules. This hardship was unique due to this history of development in the area and could not exist on other properties within the City because: I. There were few properties of this sized that remain undeveloped within Arden Hills. 2. The current platting and history were unique and related solely to these properties. To date no demonstrated or valid proof that this project would be detrimental to the public welfare or would be injurious to any real property right currently held by adjoining properties has been presented." Acting Chair Sand asked who owned the lot directly to the South of Mr. Goserud. Mr. Goserud replied he owned the lot and it was vacant, but that lot was not a part of this proposal. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked why this parcel was left out. Mr. Goserud replied there was no way it could he incorporated at this time for this proposal. Acting Chair Sand asked ifMr. Goserud had considered using this property as an access instead of what they were proposing. Mr. Goserud stated they had considered this, but he believed it would be beneficial to place the access between the properties. Commissioner Zimmerman asked who would develop the property. Mr. Goserud replied they had not made that decision yet. Mr. Goserud pointed out that due to errors in past surveying and platting, six (6) feet had been encroached upon on 4350 Hamline. The origina110t width was intended to be 132 feet, but the surveyed only came out to 126 feet. Mr. Parrish stated the applicants had not taken advantage of past platting to take advantage of an access. He stated the proposed access at this point was over 500 feet long Rhonda Mynnel, 1284 Amble Road, stated she had prepared the petition. She indicated they had moved to Amble Road in 1987. She stated in 1992, there was a proposal to have an access off of Amhle Road, hut Mr. Aiken had rejected that proposal. She stated the applicants in the past had future options. She indicated Hamline Road was a very busy road and was concerned about having a development on Hamline Road. She stated there was not enough room between Wyncrest and Amble for another access. She stated everyone in their neighborhood had equal lot sizes. She asked that the neighborhood be kept a more suburhan area. She stated if they grant a variance for this, then they would have to allow access all ofthe way down Amble Road. She expressed concern regarding Wyncrest going downhill, and the possible flooding that could occur if this area was .~......... C0.{......l.~"... ......P..\"'f0"P..\ "19 ,.~..\ .. . '.' ....-\ 'C'" ....... ."te" y,":'71 .. .....