03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The current proposal shrinks the easement to roughly what was suggested and deemed unacceptable in 2006 and was shown to be unacceptable in the 2012. As shown above, the proposal also includes utility lines, driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall that will be going under, on top of, around, and beside the easement/lift station... this will result in additional expenses down the road when a rebuild is required. The city should not have to bear additional costs and/or lost capabilities just to cram an extra home (let alone two!) on a lot that already has reasonable use in it's current state. Additional Driveways on Thom When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered developable by both the planning commission, the developer, and the owner. Putting in a private drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] They further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent toThom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive and was rebuffed. Thom is a very small, winding road with no shoulder that doesn't meet minimum dimensions (1130.03 subd 1) that gets used extensively by people trying to avoid traffic on 35W every evening. The New Brighton Road / Thom drive intersection also doesn't meet the safe intersection rules in the subdivision section of city codes ("subd 8: Safe intersections: The angle formed by the intersecting of streets shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees") and, in fact, 3685 New Brighton Road is only a degree or two off from not being able to labled as a 'corner lot' at all. Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking either. Putting 2 new driveways basically at this mostly- blind (when coming off southbound NBR onto Thom) intersection is a public safety issue. Retaining wall: The 40' long retaining wall is only a couple of feet from the lift station. Any work on the list station would surely be made more difficult and/or costly due to this wall. Who pays when it's injured by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? Who pays when it fails and the lift station is damaged / compromised? This complicates a currently-simple process. This retaining wall is 4 feet from the top of the wall to the surface at the bottom. City code requires a building permit for retaining walls that are over four feet from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. As such, this wall will require a building permit (and the extra time and cost associated) any time it its damage, fails, or work needs to be done on/under it for the lift station needs. Tree preservation: The 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance, the planning commission had concerns about this "major tree removal", preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much tree cover left".[7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land...[3] and if you exclude the untouched lot 1, the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller