PCP 08-02-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2006 6 , Commissioner Larson stated since they have two driveway accesses now onto New . Brighton Road, separate driveways on Lots I and 2 would have no net gain and he did not believe the County would have any objection to have these two accesses. Commissioner Larson noted in prior discussions, Lot 1 was a problem lot because of all of the retaining walls. He asked with this new proposal, would all of the retaining walls be replaced or only sclected walls. Mr. Lelmhoffresponded he was not sure which walls were being kept and replaced, but he knew the applicant had been in discussions with the neighbors to address their cone ems. He stated the applicant should be able elaborate more on their discussions with the neighbors. Commissioner Thompson asked if the preliminary grading and crosion control plan had been approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the City Engineer had approved this. Commissioner Thompson asked if Rice Creek Watershed had reviewed the application but had approved it yet. Mr. Lelmhoff responded it had not been approved yet, but after his review of the information, it did not appear there were any major obstacles. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the request to come forward and make . comment. Mr. Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, property owner to the north of this development, stated he has spoken with the applicant regarding the rctaining wall and he believed all of the ideas they came up with would work. He summarized the ideas they had looked at with respect to the retaining walls. He indicated the applicant had gone through a lot of effort to address his concerns and he believed this plan was a great improvement over the first plan and he believed it would work. He stated he was not in opposition to this proposal. Commissioner Thompson asked if Mr. Gilbert had any concerns with respect to timing as to when the retaining wall would be addressed. Mr. Gilbert stated if this wasn't addressed as part of the project itself, that would be a concern because the new homeowner might not have an agreement with him as to what was going to be done, and if the wall was tom down, there would be erosion. Mr. Lelmhoff noted that regardless of any conditions, the applicant could not cause erosion damage to the adjacent properties. Chair Sand noted there were no conditions with respect to the retaining wall. He asked if they needed to address it. Mr. Lehnhoff responded this could be added as a condition. He suggested the following language: Applicant shall submit a signed agreement with the property owner regarding the retaining wall plan. .