03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

additional development where everyone reasonably 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 labeled 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 homes and with driveways basically at this mostly-blind (when coming off southbound NBR onto Thom) intersection and road is a public safety issue. 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 (currently treeless) easement... they are clear- cutting 78% of the land area [3]. Unacceptable as that may be, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are only a couple feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. I contacted a landscape architect about this and she informs me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (oaks are very susceptible to soil compaction issues). Construction traffic and soil compaction will kill more trees than are currently in the list for removal. I contacted a builder and asked further about tree removal and was informed that trees that overhang (or are near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access regardless of the plan. Additionally, I have 3-4 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3]. Further, other trees marked as 'save' are diseased including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. The number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already tragically egregious, is lower than reality. The following trees should be counted as additional removed caliper inches: 931 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 844 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 843 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 873 (adjacent to basin) 874 (adjacent to basin) 875 (adjacent to basin) The caliper inches of the above trees is an additional 91 inches that should be counted as being removed. City staff told me diseased trees do not count as caliper inches on site. There are 70 total caliper inches of trees marked as 'save' that are also marked as diseased. This should lower the total caliper inches on site by 70. Using the proposals plan [3] base numbers we should lower the total number of caliper inches to 1624" and increase the caliper inches removed to 635" results . This results in total inches over threshold being 473". At a 1:2 ratio, the total inches to be mitigated should be 236". This is more than 188" the plan[3] calls for. I should note that tree 925 (28" oak), 926 (26" oak) and 871 (18" box elder) will likely die, with plenty of work being done inside their dripline...however, the encroachment into the dripline is less