Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2006 5 <br />. Ivan Gilbel1, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he was also concerned about the private <br /> driveway and the run-off from the driveway. He asked if the driveway was not <br /> maintained, how this would affect the run-ofT into the Ricc Creck Watershed, He <br /> expressed concern about the number of vehicles parking in the private driveway. He <br /> stated the retaining wall discussed was right on the edge of his property and noted the <br /> retaining wall was not very attractive and with new homes coming in, he did not think <br /> they would want to see an unattractive retaining waIL He stated if the retaining wall was <br /> removed, hc wantcd a ncw onc built He indicated he did not understand why this had to <br /> be four lots. He recommended they develop three lots instcaddfJour lots. He stated he <br /> was disappointed the applicant had not talked to him ahoultheplaris. He statcd when hc <br /> bought his home 30 years ago, he understood that there .>>'Olil,j be no development on the <br /> side of him, and now they were proposing to put in a development <br /> Commissioner Larson asked if the retaining w:illltreated more areafor the bituminous <br /> driveway area on the 3695 New BrightonJ}.oad lot Mr. Gilberttesponded that was <br /> correct <br /> 'n....,. ',<' <br /> .dO ."'.'d.. <br /> '''''''.'.;- -', <br /> . .. . " <br /> '>>:;'T .)-:,:1\:-': <br /> Commissioner Larson asked if it was possible t6.igrilde'thelot to eliminate the retaining <br /> waIL Mr. Gilbert stated he believed there would n661J.iitg be some type of a retaining wall <br /> put in.':_ <br /> ':m ':~'>,ci' <br /> Gordy Martin, 3670 New Brighton Road,stated he wasirfeither for nor against this <br />. development He asked why the lots weren6tbal.'\ficed more. Tim Horita, 3685 New <br /> Brighton Road, propeI1y,pwner, responctedhe wanted to preserve his Lot (Lot 4) with as <br /> much open andi,:bUffer~]Ja.ce as possible. He believed some type of a retaining wall <br /> would need t()"~e retai11(~dm8n Lot I, possibly four feet He stated he was proposing a <br /> more naturalgtildeinsteadiiiof a sharp drop off. He agreed the retaining wall was not <br /> attractive and shoUJeIiirrobably,bg,rcplaecd, He stated he was proposing to have custom <br /> builth.orncsOn Lot 2iillld3. HFindi'e~f~d'in ordcr to make this financially feasible; they <br /> needcd to getthe three lots' on his property. He stated hc had friends interested in these <br /> lots. <br /> Vice Chair Zimmcrman askcd if they would accept a condition to replace the retaining <br /> wall, Mr. Martin responded he wanted to make this a win-win situation and he <br /> understood the concern of the neighborhood. He stated he wantcd to preserve as much <br /> natural space as possible. <br /> Commissioner Larson noted there was going to be major tree removal and asked how this <br /> would preserve the natural space, He stated it did not appear there would be much trce <br /> cover left Mr. Littlefield responded anywhere they could leave trees, they would, but thc <br /> trees being proposcd to bc removed wcrc being removed for the driveway, the sewer <br /> utility, and the home building. <br /> Commissioner McClung stated he understood his concern about retaining as much of his <br /> lot as possible to protect the green space and the wetland, but in crafting this development <br />. by making his lot so much larger, it was forcing the other lots to be considerably smaller <br />