Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The current proposal shrinks the easement to roughly what was suggested and deemed <br />unacceptable by the city council (by suggestion of the then-city engineer) in 2006 and <br />was shown to be unacceptable in the 2012 rebuild. As shown above, the proposal also includes <br />utility lines, driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall that will be going under, <br />on top of, around, and beside the easement/lift station... this will result in additional expenses <br />down the road when a rebuild is required. The city should not have to bear additional costs and/or <br />lost capabilities just to cram an extra home (let alone two!) on a lot that already has reasonable use <br />in it's current state. <br />Additional Driveways on Thom and public safety: <br />When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered <br />developable by both the planning commission, the developer, and the owner. Putting in a private <br />drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning <br />commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not <br />just an inconvenience. [7] <br />They further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with <br />separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] <br />The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new <br />lots [that would have been in the back of 3695] without the creation of a central outlot because of <br />lot size and topology".[8] <br />This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this <br />came up, modified, with one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding <br />traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees,