My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-14-06 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
12-14-06 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2008 9:32:51 AM
Creation date
4/23/2008 9:28:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 14, 2006 <br />homes have an increased front yard setback at Che point of Che 75 foot <br />minimum width. <br />The City Planner indicated that Che Subdivision Ordinance says that lot <br />width is measured at the minimum building setback line for lots at the end <br />of a cut-de-sac. The minimum building setback line is 30 feet from the <br />road right-of-way. For Lots 7, 8, and 9, this does not occur until quite a <br />bit further into the lots. Therefore, the applicant would have to request a <br />Variance in the design allowing narrower lots with a compromise that the <br />buildings be set back further into the lot. The Planner indicated that <br />another option would be to allow a Variance for cut-de-sac length making <br />the road 50 to 100 feet longer. The Planner indicated that in order for the <br />plat to comply with all ordinance requirements, it is likely thaC one lot <br />would be lost. <br />Barraclough noted the 15 foot access to Outlot 2 as well as the <br />configuration of Lot 10, and suggested that Lots 7, 8, and 9 be shifted to <br />increase their width. The Planner noted that access has to be maintained <br />to Outlot A and also noted that there is quite a bit of width that would need <br />to be made up for Lots 7, 8, and 9. <br />Barraclough indicated thaC the access to Outlot 2 could be an easement <br />rather than part of the outlot. The Planner noted that the house on Lot 9 <br />would have to be constructed so that it does not block access to the outlot. <br />Duray asked if the concept met the requirements of the Comprehensive <br />Plan. The City Planner replied that it did noting that the concept is a low <br />density single-family development. <br />Barraclough pointed out the Planner's comment that the concept does not <br />create a connection to adjoining undeveloped properties. Barraclough <br />asked if including the potential for connections would reduce the number <br />of lots. The City Planner stated that he has not studied the impact of <br />making the connection. He noted the potential to provide access Co the <br />west through Lot 10. Providing access to the east will be more difficult <br />and may not be possible. The Planner indicated that this is an issue the <br />City Engineer will have to look at. <br />Duray asked the plan for Outlot 4. Soby stated thaC at this point Che plan <br />would be to leave this area as common open space. It was noted that this <br />property is in the City of Maplewood. <br />Duray asked if the street would meet the City's minimum standards. Soby <br />replied that it would. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.