Laserfiche WebLink
Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the floodplain circles the properties and there is upland <br />area. She commented that some fill is allowed in the floodplain with proper measures and <br />mitigation. She stated that the lots could accommodate the area needed for a house pad and <br />well/septic and most likely only the driveways would be within floodplain. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove referenced the nine-lot layout and easements and asked for additional <br />input on whether those would be for roads. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl noted that these are easements that already exist for utilities and <br />would not be used for roads. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson referenced lots two through five, which would appear to be hard to build <br />on because of the floodplain in that area. He commented that he does not like the 1,500-foot cul- <br />th <br />de-sac and asked if a road could be run from the cul-de-sac bulb to 178 to provide a second access <br />to the development. He stated that he does not prefer to have only one way in or out of a <br />development. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl displayed a map which identifies the wetlands on site, explaining <br />that the road connection would run entirely through wetland. She stated that the comments of the <br />neighbors have been that they do not want the road connection or disruption to the wetlands. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that it would appear the road connection would go through <br />tilled fields rather than wetlands and that there would be minimal wetland disruption. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he could support a connection that would move to the west to <br />th <br />connect to 178. <br /> <br />Kendra Lindahl, Landform, commented that the only request tonight is for the nine-lot subdivision <br />and they are requesting for input on the cul-de-sac. She stated that they do not intend to include a <br />th <br />connection to 178 as it was clear that the neighbors do not want that. She stated that they received <br />the input from the neighbors and reduced the number of lots from the 37 which would be allowed <br />th <br />to nine lots. She stated that the road connection to 178 would need to go through a public park <br />and require wetland fill and would instead preserve the natural features of the site with two estate <br />lots that backup to that area and fits the existing character of the area. She stated that they are <br />looking for feedback on this alignment and the longer cul-de-sac before they decide whether to <br />invest additional funds into this proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Woestehoff asked if there is an economic consideration between the different <br />alignments and whether a cul-de-sac would support nine lots and 19 lots would be needed to <br />support a road connection. He commented that there just seems to be a large jump between the <br />two proposals. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl replied that the neighbors would not support the 19-lot subdivision and they do not <br />want to present something that the neighbors would not support. She stated that the road <br />connection would require additional road costs and process, as the road would go through public <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ December 3, 2020 <br />Page 12 of 15 <br /> <br />