03-18-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w #161 1 BALDUR PARK 2-22-1991 We/ Bill and Jean Pucel/ are submitting the enclosed sketch plan for developement of the Baldur Park Peninsula. We realize this particular property has a long history before the commission. Several previous attempts in developement have failed to materialize/ partially due to the expectations of the developer and partially due to the constraints imposed by the City. We realize the Commission and Council cannot use financial reasons for making their decisions/ however; financial concerns are extremely inportant to the developer. As the City requirements are placed on a property the developer must pass the cost on to the lot purchaser (Additional costs divided over the number of lots.) This particular property unique in its shape/ long; narrow and smaller building envelope has water on three of its sides which has further reduced the buildable land due to setback requirements. The conditions applying to this development are peculiar to this property because it involves a peninsula rather than a typical lot fronting water on one side only. The conditions at Baldur Park do not generally apply to other land or structures and no unwanted precedent would be created in this situation because the variances would apply only to this unique peninsula. Road/ cul de saC/ sewer; site developement requirements; plus land purchase dictate to the developer the necessity of a four lot subdivision. We are trying to make it viable with three. When the word "we" or "developer" is used/ please note this represents Jean and myself; not some big corporation in downtown Minneapolis. We plan on living on the end lot ourselves/ so we are paying particular attention to environmental conditions/ aesthetics/ (costs) and want to be part of the neighborhood and community of Orono. We have had several meetings with Jeanne Mabusth and are trying to incorporate her guidance to the best of our ability into the ski'tch plan. So let's start at the beginning and give to you our thoughts and concerns. Jean and I have met with David Mess; owner of the existing home on lot 30/ to discuss our plans and pursure the possibility of purchasing his property and including it in the developement. The price is out of line with the Vc.lue of the surrounding property and does not increase the buildable land nor give any other advantage other than change of ag^arance. Jean and I met with the neighbors in early January; 1991 to introduce ourselves and share our plaris for the peninsula and to inquire if they would be willing to grant us a toad euserent . Attending were Mr. and Mrs. Sterling (Wendy-owner of lot 20)/ and Mr. and Mrs. Keesling. (owners of lot 19). Unfortunately they entered with great hostilities towards us/ probably because of their experiences with the previous owners. The result of the meeting waS/ They didn't want their park built on; well maybe they would allow one house. They plan to stop developement by not allowing access to the property. The enclosed road survey shows that a point of lot 17 and 18 (Mr. Berry's property/ who cculd not attend/ but was contacted later and would get back to us) extended across the existing road. The original road has been allowed to gradually erode and migrate through use onto their -I- 1 ••'I ■iybiiaumAM