My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-12-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 06-12-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:36 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:10:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />The preliminary plat would reconfigure 3685 New Brighton Road (1.87 acres) and 3695 New . <br />Brighton Road (,99 acres) into four new 101s and one outlot. <br /> <br />Lots I and 2 were essentially on the 3695 New Brighton Road property, and Lots 3 and 4 on the <br />3685 New Brighton Road property. Outlot A was on the 3695 property immediately adjacent to <br />the existing property line with 3685 New Brighton Road. <br /> <br />The applicant was proposing 10 remove the two existing driveways that serve 3685 and 3695 <br />New Brighton Road and construct one shared private driveway to New Brighton Road for all four <br />proposed lots. The City's Subdivision Code did not permit streets outside of Planned Unil <br />Developments and requires all lots to bc directly adjacent to the public right-of-way. Therefore, <br />the applicant was requesting a variance for a shared private driveway and, by default, for Lots 2 <br />and 3 to not be directly adjacent to a public right-of-way, If approved, Lots 2 and 3 would have <br />access to the public right-of-way via the proposed private driveway on Outlot A. <br /> <br />He stated although the site plans indicate that only three of the four proposed lots would use the <br />private driveway, the applicant was proposing that all four of the lots would access Ncw Brighton <br />Road from the private driveway, The applicant had submitted a utility plan, grading & erosion <br />control plan, and tree removal plan. <br /> <br />According to the proposed site plans, Lots I, 2, and 3 would accommodate walk-out style homes, <br />The existing structures on 3695 New Brighton lot, including a dwelling and four accessory <br />structures, would be removed, The existing dwelling and accessory structure on the 3685 New <br />Brighton lot would remain on Lot 4. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and preliminary plat. <br />The variance denial was based on the finding lhat no hardship existed because there was <br />sufficient space on the lot to construct a full City street and cul-de-sac, which would be in <br />conformance with the City's Subdivision Code. <br /> <br />Since the variance was recommended for denial, the preliminary plat was included in the motion <br />to recommend denial of the variance since Lots 2 and 3 do not have access to the public right-of- <br />way and are not in conformance wilh the Subdivision Code without approval of the variance, <br /> <br />Dan Larson, on behalf of Amities Coast, LLC, has requested thc application be tabled to give the <br />applicant an opportunity to submit a revised application that is in full compliance with the <br />Subdivision Code, If tabled, the application would be remanded back to the Planning <br />Commission for further review, <br /> <br />Hc indicatcd the preliminary plat and variance wcre submitted as one application and presented <br />to the Plamling Commission as being contingent upon each other. However, upon further <br />examination, the City Council docs have the option to deny the variance and table the <br />preliminary plat. This action would require the applicant to submit a revised subdivision design <br />that mccts the full Subdivision Code without the nced for a Valiance, If the applicant were <br />unable to revise the design to be in full compliance with the Subdivision Code, the City would . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.