My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-07-18 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2018
>
02-07-18 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 3:52:59 PM
Creation date
8/30/2018 3:50:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the orientation of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to <br />this overdevelopment. <br />These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and <br />the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-constructed retaining ponds. [3] <br />The smallest includes the proposed, smaller, easement and is still 45% easement. <br />Average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 ot the train tracks is <br />1.32 acres.. all but 3 larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). If you include <br />adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres. These would set <br />the new standard for smallest properties by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the <br />average property. While they fit the R-2 minimums, they are too cramped for the area and <br />will negatively impact property values. <br />The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and <br />cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. PC 07 005, also involving Richard <br />Kostok, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about and was denied at 2015 <br />Thom. ... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. Specifically, the <br />commission stated that "Density was not the objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use <br />exists in its' current state" <br />Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a <br />significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on." [1] and Tim, himself, said in a previous application <br />for development that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the <br />entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] <br />there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] <br />Easement: <br />The lift station is oldest in the city - bulit in 1971[4]. Easement is approx 8600 sqft. Both it <br />and the easement have been there well before Tim bought his property. <br />The 2007 attempt to place one additional house on 3685 New Brighton road resulted in the <br />easement potentially shrinking by 2000 square feet. At that time, it was stated from the city <br />engineer that the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in <br />the future".[5] Staff review recommended enlarging the easement by 10 feet on the side <br />opposite the proposed vacated area and then noted that only "with the boundary adjustment, <br />the city engineer [and public works director] determined that partially vacating the easement <br />would not impact the function, maintenance, or reconstruction of the lift station."[6] <br />The current proposal shrinks the easement to by about 4000 square feet. That is about twice as <br />much vacated space as was deemed unacceptable last time. It also includes utility lines, <br />driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall will be going under, on top of, <br />around, and beside... surely this will result in additional expenses down the road when a <br />rebuild is required. <br />Driveways:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.