Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />APRIL 12, 2007 <br />sac as proposed is 1,050 feet long, far exceeding the City's 500 foot <br />maximum. It was Gores' contention that just labeling the cul-de-sac as <br />"temporary" does not get around the 500 foot maximum length. Gores <br />pointed out that there is no proposal for the development of the property to <br />either the east or west of proposed Richie Place. Gores suggested that the <br />1,050 foot long cul-de-sac was not much different from the first concept <br />proposed that consisted of 40+ townhomes. Gores felt the cul-de-sac <br />should be limited to 500 feet in length and then extended at the time that <br />property to the east or west is proposed for development. Gores was <br />concerned about public safety pointing out that emergency vehicle access is <br />more difficult on a longer cul-de-sac. Gores felt that the developer should <br />be bound to the City's maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length. <br />Jolene Gores asked why a road connection is proposed to the Quam <br />property to the northwest of this proposed plat when the Quam's have <br />indicated that they are not interested in developing their property. The City <br />Planner pointed out that the City has to plan for future development <br />potential even if the cun•ent property owners are not interested in <br />developing. This is a requirement of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. <br />Gores noted that the City has an ordinance that limits cul-de-sac length to a <br />500 foot maximum. Gores asked what the hardship would be to warrant <br />varying from that maximum length. The City Planner noted that this review <br />is at concept level, and no Variance request has been made. Any Variances <br />would be considered at the Preliminary Plat level. The Planner did indicate <br />that if a Variance is requested a hardship may be that a longer cul-de-sac is <br />necessary as there is not other way to make reasonable use of the property. <br />Another hardship reason may be that without the longer cul-de-sac there is <br />no way to provide for future development of adjacent properties. <br />Jolene Gores indicated that in 2000 it was determined that due to <br />topography there was no way to provide development access to the <br />properties to the west. <br />Tom Roycraft, 2910 Arcade Street, asked if the developer was aware that it <br />was determined in 2000 that road access to provide development potential <br />for the properties to the east and west was not feasible. Soby indicated that <br />the proposed road connections to the east and west were in response to the <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission. <br />Roycraft indicated that it appears the developer is not aware of the studies <br />and wetland delineations that were done which indicated that a road <br />connection to Arcade Street was not a good idea. Roycraft stated that his <br />preference was to see larger lots more in keeping with the character of the <br />neighborhood rather than what the developer is proposing. Roycraft <br />indicated that the l O lots proposed in the previous concept seemed to be <br />3- <br />