Laserfiche WebLink
not be future subdivision. He asked if the condition could be placed upon the variance that only <br />the nine homes could be built. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that she could speak with the City Attorney for input. <br />She noted that any future subdivision would require an additional variance and therefore would <br />need to come back before the Commission and City Council. She stated that the statement can be <br />made that another variance would not be granted in the future for subdivision and that can be <br />included in the file for future inquiries. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that there appear to be outstanding environmental issues related to <br />the wetlands. He stated that it did not appear this would be ready for Preliminary Plat. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson commented that the approval would be contingent upon those conditions. <br />He reviewed the statements related to drainage and utility easements. He noted that one driveway <br />will need to be realigned in order to avoid the drainage and utility easement. He stated that staff <br />is also working with the DNR to ensure that there would not be floodplain impacts or concerns <br />with driveways being inundated. He stated that the applicant would continue to work on those <br />items. He stated that he would not have any hesitation making the approval contingent upon those <br />actions. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that there are a similar number of comments for this <br />request as there have been for other development requests. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson commented that the Environmental Policy Board has also reviewed this <br />and provided a positive recommendation related to natural resources. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked for input on the variance requested. He asked if there is a reasoning <br />within City Code as to the maximum length of a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson commented that the variance is related to the cul-de-sac length. He <br />commented that he is not aware of the specific rationale within City Code as to the allowed length <br />of a cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that he has been under the impression that the policy is based <br />off public safety. He stated that his concern would be that there is a standard that the City is <br />looking to compromise to allow something to happen outside of that standard. He stated that he <br />would be hesitant to compromise public safety. He stated that having a few extra feet of road <br />width may seem to be an improvement but would not be if the road were blocked. He stated that <br />he has difficulty in considering approval. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson noted that there are other examples of longer cul-de-sacs that have not <br />resulted in issues with safety. He stated that the recommendation from public safety and related <br />comments were included in the staff report. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer asked if the Ramsey Code is in line with the adjacent community regulations <br />for cul-de-sac length. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ June 3, 2021 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br />