Minutes - Council - 06/26/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that Mr. Boe is coming forward and wants to sanction a safety issue that he has concerns about. Councilmember Elvig clarified with Councilmember Jeffrey that his concern about adding more cars onto County Road #5 relates to direct access onto County Road #5. He requested clarification from staff that if the property to the north was so inclined they could actually access two driveways directly onto County Road #5 and put two houses without connecting to anyone, and there is not much the City could do. Community Development Director Trudgeon advised there is a minimum density of four units per acre. Staff does not think this scenario could be done since the property is not zoned for single family. The second point is that a driveway permit would be needed from the County, which might be an issue. Associate Planner Daines stated without GAD's Prairie the only access will be off of County Road #5. If they create one segment of the puzzle now, that increases the likelihood of someday being able to get an access off of 146th Avenue. If this is denied now the adjacent property owner would also need to be denied; the only one that could be approved is the property to the north,' and it would have to go in that order. Mayor Gamec stated this developer has met everything as far as the cul-de-sac and things they required. They know they want the access off of County Road #5 and the next development will have to fall into place, followed by the next one. Mr. Boe stated as far as the traffic generation from the housing PUD, with handicapped housing and people with incurable diseases, the y do not know how much traffic will be put onto County Road #5 with this adaptable housing; the one level units are for snowbirds, which would have less traffic. Councilmember Jeffrey stated the traffic is calculated based on 7 trips per unit. Mayor Gamec stated the way this has been done is the best for future development. The motion on the floor was withdrawn. City Attorney Goodrich advised findings of fact have been prepared for Council consideration if the Council chooses to deny this final plat. It is important to remember that in 2006 preliminary plat approval was granted to this plat, which typically is the final authority other than the final plat. State laws say the preliminary plat cannot be amended for up to two years after it has been granted. However, this preliminary plat was contingent on the City Staff Review Letter dated May 24, 2006. Finding No.7 is likely the most important, which states "That the City Staff Review Letter, dated May 24, 2006, revised June 23, 2006, stated that any approvals should be contingent upon addressing the concerns of the Anoka County Highway Department." Mr. Goodrich advised that the Anoka County Highway Department weighed in on this, and in his opinion this would allow the Council to effect this preliminary plat due to the statements from Anoka County. He recommended the following amendment to finding No.7: "That the City Staff Review Letter, dated May 24,2006, revised June 23, 2006, stated that any approvals should be contingent upon addressing the concerns of the Anoka County Highway Department, which traffic safety concerns are addressed in an Anoka County letter dated May 7, 2007 and adopted herein as is fully set forth at this {Joint, and a COpy of which letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A." Mr. Goodrich advised he also recommends the deletion of finding no. 11. Councilmember Elvig inquired about proceeding from this point. Associate Planner Daines stated she believes if GAD's Prairie is denied Mr. Sagwold will come forth with a development that seeks access off the County Road. Council can take action on that as appropriate. City Council / June 26, 2007 Page 18 of 38