My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-31-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 07-31-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:41 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:10:41 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.
/
144
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2006 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Commissioner McClung asked if a permit would have to be approvcd by Ramsey County <br />to construct the two driveways. Mr. Lehnhoff responded Ramsey County would grant <br />thc shared driveway if it \vas insisted upon, but Mr. Soler did not see the need for a <br />shared driveway because it was possible to construct two drivcways. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson stated since they have two drivcway accesses now onto New <br />Brighton Road, separate driveways on Lots I and 2 would have no net gain and hc did <br />not believe the County would have any objection to have these two accesses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson noted in prior discussions, Lot I was a problcm lot bccause of all <br />ofthc retaining walls. He asked with this new proposal, would all of the retaining walls <br />be replaced or only selected walls. Mr. Lehnhoffresponded he was not sure which walls <br />were being kcpt and rcplaced, but he knew the applicant had bccn in discussions with the <br />neighbors to address their concerns. He stated the applicant should be able elaborate <br />more on their discussions with the neighbors. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson askcd if the preliminary grading and crosion control plan had <br />been approved by thc City Engineer. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the City Engineer had <br />approved this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson asked if Ricc Crcck Watershed had reviewed the application <br />but had approved it yet. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it had not bccn approvcd yct, but aftcr <br />his review of the information, it did not appear there were any major obstacles. <br /> <br />Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair Sand invited !:U1Y0!1e for or against the request to corne fonvard and rrmke <br />comment. <br /> <br />Mr. Gilbcrt, 3707 New Brighton Road, property owner to the north of this development, <br />statcd he has spoken with the applicant rcgarding the retaining wall and he believed all of <br />the ideas they came up with would work. Hc summarizcd thc ideas they had looked at <br />with respect to the retaining walls. He indicated the applicant had gone through a Jot of <br />effort to addrcss his concems and he believed this plan was a great improvement over the <br />first plan and he believed it would work. He stated he was not in opposition to this <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson askcd ifMr. Gilbert had any concerns with respect to timing as <br />to when the retaining wall would be addressed. Mr. Gilbert stated if this wasn't <br />addressed as part of the projcct itself, that would be a concern because the new <br />homeowner might not have an agreement with him as to what was going to be done, and <br />ifthe wall was torn down, there would be erosion. <br /> <br />Mr. Lehnhoff noted that regardless of any conditions, the applicant could not cause <br />erosion damage to the adjacent properties. <br /> <br />DRAfT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.