Laserfiche WebLink
From: <br /> To: AH Planning <br /> Subject: Public comments for Planning Commision meeting of 6/3/2020 <br /> Date: Monday,June 1,2020 10:12:57 AM <br /> Caution This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. <br /> Hello, <br /> These are my comments as they pertain to the O'Meara Land Use application for PC#20-003 <br /> Ecko Estates Preliminary Plat and Variance at 3246 New Brighton Road. <br /> I was going to make them at the Arden Hills Planning Commision meeting on Wednesday, but <br /> I see from the letter we received that written comments are preferred, so I am sending them to <br /> you ahead of the meeting. <br /> Here are my three points/questions/comments: <br /> 1. There are 13 houses on the east side of New Brighton Road between County Road D and <br /> Beckman Avenue. To the southeast of the land in question there are 9 houses, and all but one <br /> of these lots are greater than 85 feet wide by my estimation (footstep estimates). Six of these <br /> lots are 90 feet wide or greater by my estimate. One lot appears to be 83 feet wide by my <br /> estimate. To the northwest of the land in question there are 4 houses. The lot immediately to <br /> the northwest of the former fire station land is greater than 150 feet wide by my estimate, and <br /> the other three lots are all greater than 87 feet per my estimate.So my point is obvious, but my <br /> question is this: why would you permit a vaiance on lot width size for four houses in a row <br /> that doesn't fit into the adjoining lot size scheme. This rather defeats the purpose and intent of <br /> having an ordinance about lot width size of any exact footage to begin with in my opinion. <br /> 2. Driveways, public safety, New Brighton Road safety, and Jerrold Avenue/New Brighton <br /> Road intersection safety were my initial concern about this whole project, and I raised this <br /> issue immediately at the second-previous public meeting we had on this potential development <br /> project(August 2019 timeframe). Adding four driveways of private homes with families <br /> seems too much for this particular space. While some suggestions and possiblities were made <br /> at that meeting as to grouping house access (say 2 houses per driveway, resulting in only two <br /> new driveways), I see nothing along those lines in the plan diagrams that were on the back of <br /> the letter we received. Note in particular that the driveway for Lot#3 exits onto New Brighton <br /> Road directly into the existing intersection with Jerrold Avenue. This is the most blatant <br /> problem with the driveways proposal, but not my only concern given the posted speed limit of <br /> 35 mph on New Brighton Road. By the way, I'm not even sure this part of the proposed plan is <br /> under the Arden Hills City Planning Commission's jurisdiction entirely anyway as New <br /> Brighton Road is a Ramsey County Highway I'm pretty sure. <br /> 3. I have to mention the Rice Creek Watershed District in regards to this proposal. I haven't <br /> seen anything in writing from that entity on this subject, and I think they are inherently <br /> involved given the pond that is on this property. I have gotten some information from the <br /> Arden Hills city planners on this when I asked them a question about the pond, and I was told <br /> that there is a "proposed easement" of 16.5 that extends from the pond. I am having difficulty <br /> seeing that on the Landscaping Plan diagram on our letter, and I would like to have it clarified <br />