Laserfiche WebLink
rd <br />Commissioner VanScoy referenced the December 3 project documents and noted that there was <br />a comment from the Fire Department which states they prefer the second layout but believe a <br />second connection to the other neighborhood would need to be made. The comment stated that <br />without a second access there would be too many homes in the area with only one access. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl clarified that the December proposals included both 19 lots and nine <br />lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Gengler commented that there have been comments related to future divisions and <br />potentials for lot splits. She asked if this were to move forward as nine lots, would there be <br />potential for additional lot splits in the future. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that staff also discussed that potential. She stated that <br />if there were a future request to split property following the creation of nine lots, it would have to <br />meet the subdivision requirements. She commented that while future development cannot be <br />restricted, it would be difficult to add more lots with the layout as proposed. She stated that the <br />applicant is proposing to market the two northern lots as executive lots and there is planned tree <br />preservation, but the applicant could speak to that more. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that there would be two 20 acre lots and if someone wanted <br />to subdivide in the future and eliminate the cul-de-sac, extending that to the north, he would not <br />believe there to be an issue with lot width. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that it would sound that the cul-de-sac would need to <br />be extended in order to support that. She stated that properties would also require road frontage <br />and could not be landlocked. She commented that situation would require a variance. She <br />confirmed that type of request would need to go through a similar process to this. <br /> <br />Joe Bailey, representing the applicant, commented that they have discussed the possibility of <br />connecting through to the neighboring development but that would require going through City <br />park and connection to the east there is a wetland. He stated that they are working to minimize the <br />impacts to the wetlands in this area. He stated that the larger two properties to the north could be <br />further divided in the future but as noted by staff that would require additional variance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer commented that there is concern from public safety related to the length of the <br />cul-de-sac and asked if there are any other options to address that. <br /> <br />Mr. Bailey commented that they are limited on access to the site without disrupting adjacent <br />properties. He stated that the Fire Department was concerned with the width and therefore they <br />th <br />have agreed to increase the width of the roadway. He stated that the access from 175 is currently <br />very narrow and therefore there are not options to add a secondary access. <br /> <br />Todd Olin, representing the applicant, commented that they have looked at a number of variations <br />for the site and this proposal balances the road width, number of lots, wetland impacts and <br />preservation of natural features. He stated that they received input from the neighbor to the west <br />requesting that the corridor to the west be protected. He stated that it would be very difficult to <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ April 8, 2021 <br />Page 12 of 18 <br /> <br />