Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />NOVEMBER 26, 2001 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />He added Amble Road was 200 feet and the proposed road is 500 feet. He stated <br />some of the lots on Amble Raod had direct access and here the lots do not. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Goserud, 4350 Hamline Avenue, stated the Council has a letter submitted <br />with the application. He noted they became residents of Arden Hills in 1970, He <br />added he did sell some land as part of the Carthlake South development. He stated <br />there was an agreement that his remaining property would be provided access, He <br />noted the final approval by the city did not approve that access. He added street <br />access was discussed for the second time during development of the Carthlake Second <br />Addition. He stated an access was not approved at that time either. He noted these <br />denials put him in the situation where he is in today, He added they have two large <br />parcels over three acres that the city allowed to be landlocked, He stated that each of <br />the lots if 4 to 5 times larger than the surrounding lots. He noted the only access that <br />could be given to the lots now was through a private driveway. He added whatever <br />development that evolves must access through Hamline Avenue. He stated he does <br />not think any traffic generated would be more than their business during the busy <br />seasons, He noted the most recent example of a private drive being approved is the <br />Amble case approved in 1996, He added there was no discussion of hardship at the <br />Planning Commission meeting, He stated the discussion centered on the private drive <br />that did not meet city code, He noted Amble case city staff had dictated special <br />circumstances existed: <br /> <br />1, There was room for a public street, but it would have made existing homes <br />nonconforming structures. Other variances would be necessary, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. There was a substantial property right to redevelop lots of substantial size, This is <br />also true in this case, <br /> <br />3, It would provide for public welfare and an adequate turnaround for emergency <br />vehicles. <br /> <br />Mr. Goserud stated that to him the two plats are almost identical. He noted Mr. <br />Parrish indicated the Amble driveway is shorter. He added Amble Road accesses four <br />homes and his drive accesses five homes, He stated the Amble case's <br />recommendation explains a hardship and his case states there is no hardship. He <br />noted the preliminary plat before the city is just that. He added that a lot oftime went <br />into it, but they are willing to listen to suggestions, He stated he knows they have to <br />work with Rice Creek Watershed and do engineering work on the site. He thanked <br />the Council for its review. <br /> <br />Mr. Roger Aiken, 4350 and 4360 Hamline Avenue, stated the PUD never rose to the <br />level of the Planning Commission, He noted there was an error when they set up the <br />lot lines, He added he was not aware the road detracted from the property, He stated . <br />he could correct that. He noted their purpose to maximize the number of trees that <br />