Agenda - Council - 09/22/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

expected to generate 141 daily vehicle trips and 14 afternoon peak -hour trips, well below the threshold requiring a traffic study. The Planning Commission recommended approving the lot - depth variance, which would preserve mature trees and avoid additional grading otherwise necessary to meet the 200-foot requirement. Planning Manager Larson also reviewed environmental considerations, including oak forest, floodplain, wetlands, and proposed tree removal, noting that the Environmental Policy Board recommended approval and that tree removal would remain below the allowable limit. Staff recently identified concerns about grading at the southern end of Erbium Street, where constructing the turnaround could require two substantial retaining walls approximately 10.5 feet high. Staff requested additional time to explore alternatives and determine how to address future maintenance responsibility, including a possible assessment agreement with affected homeowners. Planning Manager Larson therefore suggested that Council could consider the variance separately while delaying final action on the preliminary plat until the retaining -wall issue is resolved. Mr. Paul Olson, 5750 177th Avenue NW, raised concerns regarding the proposed 1, 1 00-foot dead-end street and the City's interpretation that it is temporary and therefore not subject to the City's 600-foot maximum. He referenced a 2006 development proposal involving the same property in which, according to his research, the City required variances for roads exceeding the 600-foot limitation even though future road connections were contemplated. He questioned what ordinance provision exempts a temporary street or cul-de-sac from the 600-foot maximum, what ordinance or factual distinction justified treating the current proposal differently from the 2006 proposal, and what legally enforceable easement, agreement, funding mechanism, or deadline ensures the proposed road will ever connect through his property. He explained that his family owns the adjoining 35-acre property and has no intention of selling it. He believed that describing the road as temporary when it could remain a dead end indefinitely created a public - safety concern because the neighborhood would have only one point of entry and exit. Councilmember Buscher requested that the City Attorney or staff respond to the attorney's letter included in the Council packet on behalf of the neighboring property owners. City Attorney Johnson explained that staff was aware of the letter and had provided a similar letter to the Planning Commission. She explained that staff considers the roadway temporary based on its physical design rather than any specific deadline for future extension. Unlike a conventional permanent cul-de-sac with lots arranged around the bulb, the roadway terminates at the property boundary and is intentionally designed to continue into the adjoining property. She explained that staff therefore did not consider the 600-foot cul-de-sac limitation applicable. She further noted that the requested lot -depth variance requires Council to determine whether practical difficulties exist and that Council has discretion when applying those criteria. Councilmember Buscher asked when staff determined the roadway should be considered temporary. City Council /September 8, 2026 Page 6 of 10