Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 8, 2006 <br />Sharon Sculley asked what the hardship would be to grant a variance for <br />increased cul -de -sac length. <br />The City Planner replied that the Subdivision Ordinance provides for <br />longer than 500 foot cul -de -sacs when there is land that cannot be <br />accessed any other way. <br />Sharon Sculley asked about the need for mitigation and whether it would <br />occur on this property or some other property in the County. The City <br />Planner replied that mitigation could occur some other place within the <br />Watershed, but noted that the preference is for the mitigation to occur <br />within the same basin. <br />Sharon Sculley asked about the wetland setback. The Planner replied that <br />it is a 75 foot setback from the dwelling to the wetland. <br />Sharon Sculley asked who would own the wetland. Johnson stated that he <br />was not sure at this point. The Planner noted that the wetland could either <br />be a part of the lots being developed, or platted as an outlot. <br />Dan Sculley, LaBore Road, asked for the location of holding ponds. He <br />noted that the property is so wet that as soon as a holding ponds is dug, it <br />will fill up with water. Sculley pointed out the negative impacts that the <br />development in Maplewood and along County Road D have had on the <br />Sculley property. Sculley stated that water runs down hill and <br />consequently into his property. <br />Knudsen again noted that this review is concept in nature and ponding <br />details are not yet known. Duray suggested that it may be possible that <br />there will be fewer lots allowed once the wetland impacts are known. <br />Greg Miranda noted that as development occurs in the area, the result is <br />wetter property and less development potential for other property owners <br />in the area. <br />Knudsen pointed out that the City Engineer and the Watershed will be <br />reviewing all grading and drainage plans if this concept progresses to <br />ensure no negative impact to surrounding properties. <br />Greg Meemken, 3006 LaBore Road, reported that when he purchased his <br />home approximately 12 years ago, he was told that this property would <br />never be developed. Since that time, he has lost a lot of property to water <br />as a result of the Maplewood development. Carol Meemken pointed out <br />that given the lack of information at this time, no one knows how this <br />development will work or the impact on surrounding properties. <br />8 <br />