CCP 12-08-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RECEIVED DEe - 3 2003 City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS December I, 2003 Dear City Council, Thank you for your time during last week's meeting allowing us to voice our concerns about the building being erected very close to our living space and lot lines. We would like to recap our concerns, elaborate on topics we didn't have the time to present, address questions that may have surfaced, and articulate the next actionable steps as we understand them. Issues: . Who is liable for a decrease in market value of our residences if out~datcd building ordinances are met from a construction standpoint? When would that liability surface? In other words, the longer addressing this disparity in value is postponed, the larger the final number will be at the time of sale (assuming continued increase in residential values in our locale). We believe not only have our market values decreased due to this structure's construction, but also the attraction to a potential buyer is also negatively impacted by it. What is the cost associated with our inability to use our properties as we have to this point? We believe the pictures and plot plans weprovidcd show the extent of impact the unreasonable placement of this new structure creates on us. Our neighbor to the south mentione~the hobbies tha~ force the, need for, this building are temporary. He also mentioned this during Reed Byers' discussion WIth him when he was asked not to build on the spot in question. Because the hobbies that force this situation were mentioned as being temporary, Reed Byers has not attempted to regularly raise the issue about the number of vehicles normally parked outside their residence or the illegal use of unlicensed vehicles on the public streets. However, this structure is not temporary. We don't feel the ordinance adequately addresses the unique nature of our lots. In that the City authorized the lot lines originally, we feel the City is financially liable. For instance. 1416 is narrow compared to other 10L'\ and the new structure is very close to the dwelling and in constant view from the living space. In addition, the 1428 lot is deep~ forcing the corner in question to jut out into both the Owen and Byers lots. We did not design the lot. originally. the city did. The City failed to offer a solution other than "we should talk with OUt neighbor" when we originally approached the Council by asking Gregg Larson to look over the situation prior to any construction. Reed Byers had a previous conversation with the neighbor stating, in no uncertain terms, we do not want them to build a structure in that corner of the property. Gregg Larson and others in your office have been informed we are not able or even willing to communicate with our neighbors based on past history of our neighbor's behaviors over some rather absurd topics. We have both had positive relationships with the previous owner to our south and others on the cul- de~sac over the last eight to ten years. The only negative variable around our contentment as residents of our neighborhood has occurred since the arrival of our new neighbqrs to the south. Important to note is the strncture_isnota shcd hut1l10re_<?f_~ garage.:- ~he~_~:dQn~t have windows, stone fa~ade fronts, concrete foundations, and roll-down doors. It also now appears the roof of the shed has been cut to allow for some sort of smokestac.k. How would a heating_source affect the fire hazard or smell to our property in that gasoline 'vehicles are stored in_the structure and the building is so close to OUf homes? Ahsent demolition of this structure, we believe the building should be moved to a location on our neighbor's properly that would not negatively impact the value and use of adjacent properties. . . . . . . . . . . , . . .