Laserfiche WebLink
<br />was written. The developer was not trying to avoid an upland conservation easement type of <br />dedication. There is a significant area to the east that will never be developed, and with this <br />initial layout they have included the number of lots that are required according to the current <br />statute for density of the entire acreage. <br /> <br />Board Member Trites Rolle questioned if the intent is to develop homes in Outlot C if that is <br />possible once there are City services in this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Maloney replied that is correct. If sewer and water gets extended it would remove the need <br />for the cluster septic system, and that could be abandoned. If there are statutes and zoning in <br />place that would allow development within an R-I type of zoning the owner was looking at <br />Outlot C as a second addition, which would essentially be three lots. <br /> <br />Board Member Brauer requested the Fire Chief to comment regarding the cul-de-sac length. <br /> <br />Mr. Maloney stated he will go on record that he does not like the length of the cul-de-sac and <br />understands the concerns of the Fire Chief. However, he looks at this development as a piece of <br />the puzzle that will ultimately provide a loop. <br /> <br />Fire Chief Kapler stated from a fire safety standpoint he is opposed to long cul-de-sacs, <br />especially in non-hydrant areas. There is also a public safety issue from the single access. It is <br />good to plan for future roads, but there are subdivisions in Ramsey with single accesses and <br />planned roads that have been in place for over 20 years that have not developed to that point. If <br />just one thing happens at that entrance the residents will be landlocked. He is not opposed to <br />some variance discussions, especially in hydrant areas, but in this case with the single access, the <br />number of homes in an urban density, and the long cul-de-sac, his position as a public safety <br />officer is in opposition to this variance. <br /> <br />Board Member Cleveland questioned what it would take for the City to provide public safety to <br />homes in this type of development. She inquired if fire protection can be achieved through a <br />well. <br /> <br />Fire Chief Kapler replied with the first discussions of the cluster ordinance one concern was <br />properties with limited access that would be open for this type of development. Subdivisions <br />with a single access are not ideal from a public safety standpoint. He indicated reservoirs can be <br />put into the ground, which the City has never done. Diamonds Sports Bar has a reservoir on-site. <br /> <br />Board Member Cleveland suggested the City may want to consider reviewing the zoning <br />ordinance in relation to this access issue. She commented on the number of developments with <br />these access issues that may continue to come forward. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied currently city code does not require subdivisions to have two <br />accesses. The City may want to explore putting into the code that the City will not consider <br />developments without two accesses. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment/May 4, 2006 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />