Minutes - Planning Commission - 04/23/2026

Home

owner spoke tonight and stated that the development of his property would be unlikely. He echoed the comments of the previous speaker about the traffic concerns. Chairperson Gengler clarified that the cul-de-sac would not go onto the adjacent property and would be enclosed within the property in question. Mr. Donovan commented that a variance would be necessary for that length to be approved. Senior Planner Anderson confirmed that a variance would be needed for a cul-de-sac that extends more than 600 feet. He stated that when staff review a proposed development, they need to take a broader look at the surrounding area. He used the example of developments with utilities, which are also required to be extended to the end of a property, should the adjacent property develop. He noted that in this case, the cul-de-sac would be required to extend to provide an opportunity for a through street, if the neighboring property were to develop, as that could provide a second point of access. He recognized that the current property owner does not have plans for development, but at some time in the future, the property will change ownership, and there is no way to predict what the next property owner would want to do. Matthew Clue, 17330 Germanium Street, commented that he lives west of lots nine and ten and expressed concerns with inconsistency. He stated that a neighbor called the City on him about two trees that he cut down, and it was urgent that those be replaced. He noted that in this scenario, many more trees would be removed from the subject property. Senior Planner Anderson stated that a tree inventory is required as part of any development where data would be collected. He provided additional information on the tree preservation ordinance and its requirements. He noted that the resident referred to complaints about tree clearing, which he responded to, and this property owner was very cordial and willing to cooperate. He noted that the trees were removed by the river, where there are more concerns with erosion. He stated that this project would not be treated any differently than any other subdivision, but a tree inventory is not required at this step in the process. Mr. Clue referenced lots nine and ten and asked about the distance from Trott Brook. Senior Planner Anderson replied that lot nine would include a very small portion of Trott Brook, whereas lot ten would have a wetland area associated with Trott Brook. Mr. Clue asked if they are aware of the flooding that occurs from the waterway. Senior Planner Anderson noted the map provided, which delineates the floodplain. Christine Barrett, 17610 Argon Street, commented that they are about the narrow portion of what is being proposed and asked if any members of the Commission have driven through the neighborhood to see the wildlife and trees. She stated that it was mentioned that the tree inventory is a part of the Preliminary Plat process, but asked who had been in her backyard looking at the trees last week. Planning Commission/ April 23, 2026 Page 7 of 11