CCP 01-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 9 e He stated there was a finding of no hardship on this property. He noted the existing single family use of the property continues to be a reasonable use of the property. He reviewed the criteria for a variance. Mr. Parrish stated there were some previous applications by the applicant. He noted that there are applications that the applicant did not maintain access on the southern part of the property adjacent to Karth Lake South Second Addition and Karth Lake South. He added the allegation is that the property at one time extended back to Cummings Park and part was sold offto facilitate the developments. He stated materials supplied by the applicant do reference city actions that provide a basis for hardship requirements. He noted it referenced similar shared access drives in Arden Hills. He added most of them listed are lake lots. He stated the development that occurred around lakes did not meet city standards and predated incorporation or the current zoning code. He noted most of these are private accesses that serve at most one additional lot. He added some are flag lots. He stated Amble Road was approved in 1996. He noted Amble Road is not at the same level as what is proposed. He added Amble Road was 200 feet and the proposed road is 500 feet. He stated some ofthe lots on Amble Road had direct access and here the lots do not. e Mr. Torn Goserud, 4315 Hamlinee Avenue, stated the Council has a letter submitted with the application. He noted they became residents of Arden Hills in 1970. He added he did sell some land as part of the Karth Lake South development. He stated there was an agreement that his remaining property would be provided access. He noted the final approval by the city did not approve that access. He added street access was discussed for the second time during development of the Karth Lake Second Addition. He stated an access was not approved at that time either. He noted these denials put him in the situation where he is in today. He added they have two large parcels over three acres that the city allowed to be landlocked. He stated that each of the lots is 4 to 5 times larger than the surrounding lots. He noted the only access that could be given to the lots now was through a private driveway. He added whatever development that evolves must access through Hamlinee A venue. He stated he does not think any traffic generated would be more than their business during the busy seasons. He noted the most recent example of a private drive being approved is the Amble case approved in 1996. He added there was no discussion of hardship at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated the discussion centered on the private drive that did not meet city code. He noted Amble case city staff had dictated special circwnstances existed: 1. There was room for a public street, but it would have made existing homes nonconforming structures. Other variances would be necessary. e 2. There was a substantial property right to redevelop lots of substantial size. This is also true in this case. 3. It would provide for public welfare and an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles.