CCP 07-31-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 12, 2006 7 Commissioner McClung asked if a permit would have to be approvcd by Ramsey County to construct the two driveways. Mr. Lehnhoff responded Ramsey County would grant thc shared driveway if it \vas insisted upon, but Mr. Soler did not see the need for a shared driveway because it was possible to construct two drivcways. Commissioner Larson stated since they have two drivcway accesses now onto New Brighton Road, separate driveways on Lots I and 2 would have no net gain and hc did not believe the County would have any objection to have these two accesses. Commissioner Larson noted in prior discussions, Lot I was a problcm lot bccause of all ofthc retaining walls. He asked with this new proposal, would all of the retaining walls be replaced or only selected walls. Mr. Lehnhoffresponded he was not sure which walls were being kcpt and rcplaced, but he knew the applicant had bccn in discussions with the neighbors to address their concerns. He stated the applicant should be able elaborate more on their discussions with the neighbors. Commissioner Thompson askcd if the preliminary grading and crosion control plan had been approved by thc City Engineer. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the City Engineer had approved this. Commissioner Thompson asked if Ricc Crcck Watershed had reviewed the application but had approved it yet. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it had not bccn approvcd yct, but aftcr 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 !:U1Y0!1e for or against the request to corne fonvard and rrmke comment. Mr. Gilbcrt, 3707 New Brighton Road, property owner to the north of this development, statcd he has spoken with the applicant rcgarding the retaining wall and he believed all of the ideas they came up with would work. Hc summarizcd thc ideas they had looked at with respect to the retaining walls. He indicated the applicant had gone through a Jot of effort to addrcss his concems 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 askcd ifMr. 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 projcct 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 ifthe wall was torn down, there would be erosion. Mr. Lehnhoff noted that regardless of any conditions, the applicant could not cause erosion damage to the adjacent properties. DRAfT