04-12-07 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2007 within the scope of what is possible. The 161ot development with a temporary cul-de-sac and road connection to the east and west was not acceptable. Roycraft felt there were too many property owners involved as well as wetland issues which would preclude an east/west road connection through this area. He indicated that the Watershed has a lot of concerns about this proposed development. Roycraft felt the concept should be revised back to the 10 lots that were proposed a few months ago. Duray asked what the concerns were beyond the temporary cul-de-sac. Roycraft pointed out the wetland concerns, the hilly grades of the area, poor soils, the need for a great deal of fill. Roycraft felt that pursuing an east/west road through the area was like opening Pandora's box. Roycraft again suggested the 10-lot proposal was more feasible. Duray noted that the previous proposal was for 12 lots, not 10. Roycraft felt that a 500 foot maximum cul-de-sac length as well as large lots was a preferable development. Gary Quam, LaBore Road, noted that he owns the property adjacent. Quam felt it ill-advised to sacrifice the City's 500 foot maximum cul-de-sac rule for one additional lot in Little Canada. He noted that he was at meetings in Maplewood about this area, and Maplewood officials indicated that they were not concerned about Little Canada property owners. Quam felt that the cul-de-sac should be stopped at 500 feet with the potential to extend the street at the time adjacent property develops. Quam agreed that there were public safety concerns with overly long cul-de-sacs. Quam stated that he had difficulty seeing a hardship that would warrant the overly long cul-de- sac. Kip Johnson, engineer for the project, noted that he has reviewed correspondence from the City Engineer from 2000 to 2002 relative to this area. He noted that the proposal before the Commission is conceptual at this time. Johnson pointed out that there are delineated wetlands in the area, but noted the grade changes and doubted That the wetlands extended up the hill as far as the Richie property. Johnson also noted the indication from the City for road connections to the east and west. Johnson indicated that the Richie property is a 7-acre parcel, and felt given the size of the property, the City should not hold the cul-de-sac to the 500 foot maximum. Duray noted that if a Variance is necessary, it will be necessary to show a hardship exists before the Variance would be granted. Johnson indicated that the developer plans to comply with the City's ordinances, but noted that the stub roads plan for the future. -4-