02-14-08 Council Workshop Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 14, 2008 Blesener noted the consideration should be given to lots already located within wetlands. The Planner suggested that the 35% impervious surface limitation will refer to the upland area of a lot. Those present were agreeable with the impervious surface maximum and related language subject to the modifications recommended by the City Engineer. The Planner reviewed the proposed "Lot" definition clarification which requires that a lot have physical access from the street upon which it has frontage. The Planner pointed out, however, that the City would have no control over easement agreements between adjacent property owners that would allow access across an adjacent property. Discussion centered on the potential development of the Huot property at the corner of Little Canada Road and Edgerton Street. The Planner indicated that any platting of that property will have to show a lot's ability to have direct access on the street on which it has frontage. In the case of the Huot property, it may be that the topography and retaining wall along Edgerton Street will prevent direct access to Edgerton; therefore, the number of lots that would be developed would be reduced. The Planner suggested that in order to subdivide the Huot property into five lots, it may be necessary to improve a stub road into the property. The Planner indicated that once a property is platted, however, a property owner could obtain an easement from the neighboring property owner allowing ingress and egress over that property. There was some discussion relative to the standards of a stub road into the Huot property, and it was noted that the City's current minimum street standard is 28 feet. In the case of Boss Road the standards was reduced to 24 feet with a maximum of two lots fronting on that street. The City Administrator questioned the City's inability to require that a lot access the street that it fronts on. The Planner stated that the City can require access to the frontage street, but it cannot prevent property owners from granting access easements to one another. The Planner reviewed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance, noting the softening of the language relative to the 500-foot cul-de-sac maximum as it relates to the additional language that allows the City to require longer cul-de-sac lengths where additional natural resources will be preserved. The Planner reviewed the language clarifying the City Council's ability to exempt temporary cul-de-sacs from the 500-foot length standard where reasonable expectations exist for future connections. 2