Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 14, 2007 <br />cul-de-sac of that length, and a hardship would have to exist to warrant the <br />granting of this Variance. The Planner noted that it would have to be <br />shown that the property could not be put to a reasonable use without the <br />Variance. The Planner indicated that the longer cul-de-sac maximizes the <br />use of the property; however, limiting the cul-de-sac to 500 feet would <br />result in deeper lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. <br />Knudsen asked why the City limits cul-de-sacs to 500 feet. The City <br />Planner indicated that 500 feet is a common standard with cities, and <br />indicated that the limitation is for emergency vehicle access as well as to <br />limit the amount of traffic at the newly created intersection. <br />Knudsen noted the need for a hardship to exist. He also suggested that there <br />may be a common ground that could be found. For example, allowing the <br />cul-de-sac to exceed the 500 foot maximum in exchange for larger lots. <br />Duray noted that the first concept submitted was for a cul-de-sac with lots <br />on one side and the street backing up to the lots on Valento Lane. Duray <br />felt that this was a much better design. Duray asked the impact of <br />shortening the cul-de-sac to 500 feet. Benning replied that some lots would <br />be lost. <br />Knudsen asked the width of the proposed lots. The City Planner estimated <br />the width at 80 to 85 feet and estimated the lot area at the City's minimum <br />of 10,000 square feet. <br />Duray asked about Lot 1 and the potential need for a setback variance. <br />Benning indicated that the lot would meet City standards and no variance <br />would be required to develop it. <br />Knudsen asked about storm water treatment, and whether a pond would be <br />required. The City Planner noted that a pond would be required; however, <br />those details are not available at the concept review level. <br />Knudsen agreed that the concept presented this evening is much better than <br />the earlier concept. <br />Hall asked about the curve in the cul-de-sac. Benning replied that the curve <br />is necessary to maintain the required setback from the existing Steinert <br />house. <br />Helmeke reported that he lives adjacent to this proposal, and indicated that <br />the property owners along Valento Lane would like the tree buffer to <br />remain to the extent possible. Helmeke also asked about the likelihood of <br />Phase Two developing in the near future. Knudsen asked about tree impact. <br />-11- <br />