03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It gets used extensively by people trying to avoid traffic on 35W every evening. Further, this above-mentioned non-conforming (to narrow) road and non-conforming (to straight) intersection is also a blind intersection, going down hill, from a 40mph county road. This is an unsafe location. This plan involves adding two houses and three driveways right at this spot. When this came up, modified, with just 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 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. 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. In fact, 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 using the back of 3685 and connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] The commission further found a finding of fact that, "4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... 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 [that would have been in the back of 3695] without the creation of a central outlot [to NBR] because of lot size and topology [of 3685 near Thom]".[8] Tim, himself, when asked in 2006 why he was cramming homes on the 3695 property rather than putting them on the west side of 3685 said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] He is right -- even though the raw sqft exists, this property has unique features and unique topology such that it should NOT have 3 homes on it. The road is also not a safe spot to add additional driveways. Tree preservation: The city has a tree preservation plan that requires trees be marked 'save' or 'remove'... the preservation plan saying "it is the City's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills". You are allowed to remove a certain percentage and anything beyond that you must mitigate/replace. This plan does not comply with neither the letter nor the spirit of that ordinance. It further fails to even attempt to maintain the nature/wildlife or character of the area. The site is being clear-cut The denied 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance (which wasn't in effect until 2008), 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 (ie: including the existing, untouched, property).[3] If you exclude the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (currently almost treeless) lift station easement they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area of the two new lots [3]. The city code explicitly states: "Clear cutting of an entire stand of trees is prohibited on all parcels." (1325.05 Subd 1 Sec A part 7) The below image is taken from the south of the property, looking north-northwest, of the stand of trees being clear-cut. I've roughly marked the two treetops way in the back that belong to trees that will be saved. Everything else visible in the image is being clear cut... Page 6 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html