08-22-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2016 DRAFT 3 91 Mayor Reinert asked about the product – the type of homes and materials, etc. Ms. 92 Larsen said this is preliminary plat only – since it is not a PUD, that information isn’t 93 available. She pointed out that the development does meet the city requirements even 94 without that future traffic knowledge – it meets the findings of fact. The mayor asked if 95 there has been enough time spent looking at Totem Trail as an access. Ms. Larsen noted 96 that staff has analyzed the traffic situation thoroughly and at face value the roadway does 97 have the capacity. 98 99 Council Member Rafferty suggested the development looks nice but that he has concern 100 about the cul-de-sac length. Ms. Larsen reminded the council that there is an emergency 101 access trail included. 102 103 Mayor Reinert asked for more information about an alignment with Totem Trail and Ms. 104 Larsen said it’s really an area that falls within the county’s view of the whole area. 105 Mayor Reinert suggested it would be helpful to have more information on the option at 106 that spot. Community Development Director Grochala added that the county isn’t in a 107 position to provide that type of detail; it’s an analysis that’s just beginning for them. 108 109 Ron Holch came forward with a communication from Anoka County indicating their 110 preliminary discussion. A big problem on Hokah is the lack of sidewalks because it isn’t 111 a straight roadway and one solution would be a marked area on the street used as a 112 sidewalk even for some times of the day. Additionally he believes Hokah Drive was 113 never intended as a cul-de-sac and was supposed to have three points of access – Birch, 114 Sioux Lane and another access that didn’t occur. It wasn’t intended to be as long a cul-115 de-sac as it is. He fears more problems with more traffic. 116 117 Mayor Reinert said he’d like to see more discussion on the Totem Trail option, in spite of 118 this development going in. It’s a way to solve a different problem but would also 119 improve access for this. The criteria is met with the development except for that cul-de-120 sac variance. This is the time to look at access or there probably won’t be an opportunity 121 in the future. It’s prudent to at least explore the options now. 122 123 A council member commented that staff did a good job looking at compliance with the 124 city regulations but if there is possibility of getting a better connection now, that should 125 be allowed to happen. 126 127 Resident comments: Jeremy Stimpson, 6621 Sioux Lane, invited council to attend their 128 Night to Unite event this week. Questions he’s heard are germane to discussion coming 129 forward. He noted the 1200 vs. 1600 foot cul-de-sac comment and what is the actual 130 length. Ms. Larsen explained that it depends on where you begin the measurement. Mr. 131 Stimson argued that the 1,600 measurement makes it three times longer than is allowed. 132 He also has some questions about the allowance of decks on future homes with the 133 setback requirements. He noted that Lots 3 and 4 on the proposed preliminary plat would 134 have an incredible vista of Rice Lake but plans don’t seem to take full advantage of the 135