Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Levine inquired if the site could be partially developed, and then further <br />developed as sewer and water or the roads come in. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes replied four lots could be developed according to the 600-foot cul-de- <br />sac requirement, but that would require the cul-de-sac to remain permanently. If a through-street <br />is required it would further limit the lots to possibly two. <br /> <br />Commissioner Trites Rolle asked if there has been any discussion with the applicant regarding <br />the possibility of not developing houses around the cul-de-sac. She noted there would then not <br />be an issue of the road not being able to go through due to development around the cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt noted this would allow the process of planning and anticipating for future <br />connectivity. He indicated he does not see anything other than the cul-de-sac length that would <br />cause him concern with this application. The single access is an issue, but it is not currently <br />addressed in city code. If the intent is that single accesses be made an issue, it should be <br />incorporated into the code. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, to recommend that the City <br />Council approve the preliminary plat of Wild Oaks of Ramsey, contingent upon the City Staff <br />Review Letter dated January 27, 2006, revised April 28, 2006, and also contingent upon granting <br />of the variance request to cul-de-sac length that was denied by the Board of Adjustment through <br />the appropriate appeal process available to the applicant. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Commissioner Trites Roll reiterated her comments regarding the ability to <br />have a through access without development around the cul-de-sac. She stressed that she would <br />like to see the road have a connection without any difficulty in the future. Chairperson Nixt <br />clarified he is opposed to the cul-de-sac variance. However, given the facts of this case, if it is <br />the desire of the Council that the variance decision should be overturned he is generally <br />supportive of the development. Commissioner Levine expressed concern with the single access <br />and the long cul-de-sac in this development. Chairperson Nixt stated the intent of the Board of <br />Adjustment is clear regarding the variance request for the cul-de-sac length, with a unanimous <br />vote against the variance. He requested input from the Commission with their general thoughts <br />on the development. He indicated the layout of the development as it is portrayed is appropriate. <br />Commissioner Cleveland suggested an amendment to the motion to address the matter of <br />ensuring that public safety measures are taken by the City to protect the residents, such as by <br />access to water and sprinkling systems in the homes. <br /> <br />Motion on the floor amended as follows: <br /> <br />To recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Ebony Addition, contingent <br />upon the City Staff Review Letter dated January 27, 2006, revised April 28, 2006, and also <br />contingent upon granting of the variance request to cul-de-sac length that was denied by the <br />Board of Adjustment through the appropriate appeal process available to the applicant, and that <br />the City and the applicant work together with appropriate measures taken to address public safety <br />concerns, primarily focusing on fire. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/May 4, 2006 <br /> Page 4 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />