2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

. _.._ . . . ___. .. _ ... .. . .. .... _ . ... ,.�_;' la- .d.. , 1`.._� .:�_ 4'-'.- Watershed engineers monitoring the project to insure that there are no problems. This statement also makes ICarin and I very nervous because where were the engineers who built Silver Lalce Road on the west side of the proposed property? This road has settled tremendously due to the soil base upon which it also was built. It is like a roller coaster in places! I would hope that the engineers involved with that project had not intended it to be that way! If they didn't, that would prove my point that engineers also malce mistalces and when this happens on the proposed Longview Estates subdivision where should the current residents of Longview Drive send their damage claims to have them covered. (By the builder's insurance company I would hope.) That would incidentally not be Mr. Harstad as was pointed out in detail in previous planning commission meetings before. After Mr. Harstad sells the properly, to whatever builder has the highest price I am sure, there is no assurance that these builders will stand up to what Mr. Harstad has claimed in the past. They will do whatever is profitable for them, and we aze afraid that it will ultimately fall upon us, the other property owners along Longview Drive who will sacrifice the ultimate e�:pense of dainage to our existing homes due to actions of the land developers. 3.) Property values of proposed housing if minimum lot width variance is passed. We are also concerned about the area's property values if the variance for reduced ininimuin lot widths is passed on this property. Mr. Harstad has claimed froin the beginning that the proposed homes that he would have built on the site would be worth $3001c to $3501c and this would greatly appreciate the values of the homes in the surrounding area. We feel that he is full of lies. We just had our house re-appraised not long ago for $165k and I lrnow that most of the others in the suirounding area are very close to this same range. The appraiser even told us that no-one in their right mind would build a$300-$3501c home in this area because it would be so out of line ��vith the surrounding properties. Secondly, the proposed plan shows eleven houses being built in this area, they would literally be on top of one another with no real yards to spealc of if they were indeed $300-$350k houses. Again, very unlilce all the other properties in the neighborhood. If these houses have to be built with no basements due to the water table then the values of the proposed houses will be much, much less than Mr. Harstad has claimed. The possibility also exists that this could even reduce the value of the current houses that already exist in the neighborhood. 4.) City's responsibility for development along Silver Lake Road. Finally, one thing that was not discussed at the meeting on November 5°i, 2003 was the proposed development along Silver Lake Road. Again, Karin and I don't want development on either side of this property! What came to mind after the meeting was the development along Silver Lalce Road. During the meeting it was discussed that The County disapproves of adding driveways to Silver Lalce Road, and the proposal indicates a"T" style driveway for safe access for cars. However, in the report it was identified that "No proposed home would have any significant backyard area except lots 1& 2". If the seven ne« hoines along Silver Lake Road house new or young families with children, and the homes have no bacicyard, then the children or homeowners will be forced to spend their time in the front yards of these homes. This seems lilce a very risky proposition given the heavy traffic that can occur along Silver Lalce Road. This is not a calculated rislc, but only a matter of time before someone in one of those homes would be involved in a traffic related accident. So my question would be in regards to the city's responsibility to the potential new residents of these homes along Silver Lake Road. It seems to me that lrnowing the limitations of the design of the property that approving such a proposed development would put the city at rislc of a negligence lawsuit. Knowing the location and the activities that will be occurring on these new residential homes, the City would be enabling these citizens to live/play in their residences with a much higher risk of injury or death than other residents of the city enjoy. In conclusion ICarin and I are asking the Mounds View City Counsel & the Planning Commission to deny the Harstad Companies' & Eichi, Inc. proposed preliminary plat. We feel that there are other very serious issues with building on this property that would make it very unattractive for Mr. Harstad to build on it. I do not want evervone to i�nore the real issues of building on this propertv which include the serious technical issues as mentioned above.