10-11-07 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 2007 The City Planner indicated that he scanned through Mr. Rosen's report, and felt that the report does not add significant new information. It makes a legal argument about the language of the Code and conditions of the plat, which the Commission has had discussions about. The Planner stated that it is staff's opinion that even though this is a temporary cul-de-sac, it does meet the standards necessary for granting a Variance. However, the Commission is not compelled to grant a Variance. The Planner noted the Eden Prairie case that is raised relative to reasonable use of the property, noting that this is an essential issue in considering a Variance. The Planner again stated that it is staff's opinion that the cul-de-sac qualifies for a Variance. The Planner also noted that the Commission has the authority to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Variance request. The City Council will make the decision. The Planner noted that staff has laid out what it believes to be reasonable findings in support of the Variance. He also noted that staff has also previously offered its opinion that a Variance is not necessary given its interpretation of the City's Code that this is a temporary cul-de-sac. Mr. Rosten argues that the Code sections when taken together require a Variance. The Planner again stated that it is staffs opinion that the requirements for granting a Variance have been met. Knudsen asked about the procedural issues raised by Gores relative to the Variance application. The City Planner noted that Lauren Development made application, and it is up to City staff to determine whether or not the application is complete. City staff accepted the application, and the City is not at risk moving the application forward as the developer submitted the proper agreements relative to payment of costs. Jolene Gores asked if staff did the research for why the cul-de-sac needs a variance. The City Planner replied that it is his job in terms of researching the ordinance and providing a recommendation to the City. Hall asked how long a cul-de-sac would be considered temporary. The Planner replied that there is no date or timing listed in the ordinance. The ordinance refers to "pending future extension for future subdivision". Duray agreed that this has been a difficult project and noted that it is a sensitive area. Duray pointed out that he supported the Preliminary Plat as presented a month ago and supports the Variance due to the fact that he believes that the adjacent property will be developed in the future and it makes good planning sense to provide access to that adjacent property. Duray agreed that the density is probably more than it should be, but noted that the development meets the City's Codes. Duray suggested the need for some changes to the City's Code in the area of ri•ee preservation. However, at this point in time, Code requirements are being met. -10-