CC 05-22-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 8 . The preliminary plat would reconfigure 3685 New Brighton Road (1.87 acres) and 3695 New Brighton Road (,99 acres) into four new lots and one outlot. Lots 1 and 2 were essentially on the 3695 New Brighton Road property, and Lots 3 and 4 on the 3685 New Brighton Road property. Outlot A was on the 3695 property immediately adjacent to the existing property line with 3685 New Brighton Road. The applicant was proposing to remove the two existing driveways that serve 3685 and 3695 New Brighton Road and construct one shared private driveway to New Brighton Road for all four proposed lots. The City's Subdivision Code did not permit streets outside of Planned Unit Developments and requires all lots to be directly adjacent to the public right-of-way. Therefore, the applicant was requesting a variance for a shared private driveway and, by default, for Lots 2 and 3 to not be directly adjacent to a public right-of-way, If approved, Lots 2 and 3 would have access to the public right-of-way via the proposed private driveway on Outlot A, He stated although the site plans indicate that only three of the four proposed lots would use the private driveway, the applicant was proposing that all four of the lots would access New Brighton Road from the private driveway. The applicant had submitted a utility plan, grading & erosion control plan, and tree removal plan. . According to the proposed site plans, Lots 1, 2, and 3 would accommodate walk-out style homes, The existing structures on 3695 New Brighton lot, including a dwelling and four accessory structures, would be removed. The existing dwelling and accessory structure on the 3685 New Brighton lot would remain on Lot 4. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and preliminary plat. The variance denial was based on the finding that no hardship existed because there was sufficient space on the lot to construct a full City street and cul-de-sac, which would be in conformance with the City's Subdivision Code, Since the variance was recommended for denial, the preliminary plat was included in the motion to recommend denial of the variance since Lots 2 and 3 do not have access to the public right-of- way and are not in conformance with the Subdivision Code without approval of the variance. Dan Larson, on behalf of Amities Coast, LLC, has requested the application be tabled to give the applicant an opportunity to submit a revised application that is in full compliance with the Subdivision Code, If tabled, the application would be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review. He indicated the preliminary plat and variance were submitted as one application and presented to the Planning Commission as being contingent upon each other. However, upon further examination, the City Council does have the option to deny the variance and table the preliminary plat. This action would require the applicant to submit a revised subdivision design that meets the full Subdivision Code without the need for a variance. If the applicant were nnable to revise the design to be in full compliance with the Subdivision Code, the City would .