CCP 05-22-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant is 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 docs not permit private streets outside of Planned . Unit Developments and requires all lots to be directly adjacent to the public right-of-way, Therefore, the applicant is 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 proposcd private driveway on Outlot A, The applicant has submitted a description of the project, which is included in the attached report to the Planning Commission. Although the site plans indicate that only three ofthe four proposed lots would use the private driveway, the applicant is proposing that all four of the lots would access New Brighton Road from the private driveway, The applicant has 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 stmctures on the 3695 New Brighton lot, including a dwelling and four accessory stmctures, would be removed, The existing dwelling and accessory structure on the 3685 New Brighton lot would remain on Lot 4, Discussion During the Plmming Commission meeting, several concerns were stated by residents and the Planning Commission, These concerns included the following: . Overall concerns with the project proposal: . o Inadequate screening and significant vegetation removal adjacent to neighboring properties; o Future or replacement plans for the retaining wall along the northern side of proposed Lot I (3695 New Brighton Road) property; o Grading near the existing retaining wall and for the access road (whether it is a private driveway or City street); o Lot I is suhstantially smaller than the other three Jots; o Wetland protection and permits from the Rice Creek Watershed; o The type/architecture of the dwellings that would be constructed on the vacant lots; o Lack of discussion by the applicant with adjacent property owners before the Planning Commission meeting. . Variance concerns: o Appears to be adequate space for a City street with cul-de-sac instead of a private driveway; o Reduced emergency vehicle access without a cul-de-sac; o Long-telm management and maintenance ofthe Outlot and private driveway; o Not consistent with other developments in the neighborhood; o Parking on the private driveway. 1'.Jv!etro-ine/.us lardellhillslPlanning'Plnl1lling Cases'12006106-0J 3 Amities Coast Prelimil1l11)' PIa! & Variance (PFNOTNGj1.050806 _ CC Report- amities pim & variance. doc Page 2 of4 .