Laserfiche WebLink
park land and impact wetlands. She commented that they believe the nine-lot proposal would be <br />a better subdivision. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that while it may appear easy to make the road <br />connection on paper, the requirements of the City would require acquisition of the entire public <br />and would not be preferred by staff as it would be very challenging. <br /> <br />th <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that it would appear that the connection to 178 would occur <br />at the cul-de-sac bulb and did not see how a neighboring property would be impacted. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the City only has about 40 feet of frontage on the cul-de- <br />sac, whereas 66 feet of right-of-way is needed for a roadway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gengler asked for input from the developer on perhaps making the cul-de-sac wider <br />for more turnaround room. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl stated that the cul-de-sac proposed would meet the City standards but confirmed that <br />if that is the desire, they could work with City staff to satisfy those concerns. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson asked whether the road would be public or private. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl stated that as drawn this would be a public street and would meet the 66-foot street <br />right-of-way with a 28 paved rural section street. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson commented that on the drawing it is shown as 24 feet and he would have <br />concern with the 28-foot width as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Lindahl confirmed that the 24-foot shown as an error and that would be 28 feet as required by <br />City standard. She stated that if a wider road is desired, they could work with City staff. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated that he would prefer not to have another cul-de-sac that is 1,500 <br />feet in length and would prefer to see another option. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson agreed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer asked if there would be another option for a secondary access that would not <br />go through the park. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that the proposal from the applicant would be the only logical <br />option as there is no development on the north or east to connect to and the other areas are <br />surrounded by wetland. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gengler commented that she likes that the applicant listened to the input from the <br />neighbors but also acknowledged the concerns of public safety. She stated that she would tend to <br />support this layout because of the difficulties and uniqueness of the lot. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ December 3, 2020 <br />Page 13 of 15 <br /> <br />