02-07-18 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered undevelopable by both the commission and the developer. 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 connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] They further found a finding of fact that, "Given the size of the original two lots [3695 and 3685 combined], it may be possible to have 4 lots adjacent toThom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which 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 without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with 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 assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive. Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking as either. Retaining wall: Who pays when it's injured by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? This retaining wall is 4 feet tall. I believe this requires an engineered wall / permit. 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 (treeless) easement... they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area [3]. Further, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are mere 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 (being very susceptible to soil compaction issues) I was told they would assuredly be killed by construction traffic and soil compaction. I contacted a builder and was informed that trees that overhang (or are near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access. Additionally, I have 4-5 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3] and 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 egregious, is lower than reality. Their mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that build the city character and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the 30 healthy trunks plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half FEET around (65 inches average to be exact) at