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
When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not <br />considered undevelopable by both the commission and the developer. Putting in a private <br />drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the <br />planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was <br />"hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] <br />They further found a finding of fact that, "Given the size of the original two lots [3695 and <br />3685 combined], it may be possible to have 4 lots adjacent toThom drive and New Brighton <br />road with 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 <br />new lots without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] <br />This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with <br />one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns <br />about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone assumed there <br />would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive. <br />Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking as either. <br />Retaining wall: <br />Who pays when it's injured by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? <br />This retaining wall is 4 feet tall. I believe this requires an engineered wall / permit. <br />Tree preservation: <br />The 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no <br />tree preservation ordinance, the planning commission had concerns about this 'major tree <br />removal', preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much <br />tree cover left".[7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land...[3] and if you <br />exclude the untouched lot 1, the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (treeless) <br />easement... they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area [3]. <br />Further, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are mere feet from the construction entrances <br />and/or building site pads. I contacted a landscape architect about this and she informs me <br />construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (being very susceptible <br />to soil compaction issues) I was told they would assuredly be killed by construction traffic <br />and soil compaction. I contacted a builder and was informed that trees that overhang (or are <br />near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access. Additionally, <br />I have 4-5 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of <br />the northern basin[3] and other trees marked as 'save' are diseased including trees labeled as “Major <br />decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. The number of trees <br />labeled for removal on this plan, while already egregious, is lower than reality. <br />Their mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat is woefully inadequate. <br />These are large, mature, healthy trees that build the city character and add value to the whole <br />area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the 30 healthy trunks plan has <br />removing, the average size is 5 and a half FEET around (65 inches average to be exact) at
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.