CCP 03-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J e e e --~lf~UT 5 Arden Hills Planninl! Commission - March 3. 1999 Acting Chair Nelson closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m., as no one else wished to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Baker asked, if the proposal was approved with the cul-de-sac, would the applicant then bring the plat back to the Planning Commission for approval. Ms. Randall explained that, if the Planning Commission recommended approval and the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation for a cul-de-sac, the applicant's next step would be to present the Planning Commission with a preliminary plat. She noted that the applicant has provided a brief overview of where easements would be placed and the proposed lot sizes; however, this is not a preliminary plat review. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be a need for the acquisition of an additional right-of- way between the two lots to the south where the road currently exists on land that is not owned by the City. Ms. Randall stated that, as part of the preliminary plat, the applicant could attempt to acquire the property from the current owner. If the owner is not willing to provide the land, the applicant could request that the City Council t utilize their policing powers to acquire the land. The City Cpuncil would have to decide if this would be action they would wish to pursue. Commissioner Baker asked who would pay for the acquisition of the land and the construction of the road. Ms. R.al,1dall explained that anything on the Lake Josephine property would be assessed and/or constructed by the applicant. The other property would be assessed for any costs incurred in the maintenance of the road. She indicated there might be costs to the City and taxpayers for acquiring the piece of property that the road currently exists on if the applicant is unable to acquire the property. Commissioner Baker asked if the City would have to acquire the land in question, regardless of whether the road is straight through or a cul-de-sac. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct, the road currently is owned by the neighboring property owners. Both the straight through and cul- de-sac proposal require the City or developer to acquire the property to develop. Commissioner Galatowitsch noted that the citizens present at the public hearing were concerned about the cul-de-~i\C to the south. She asked if the northern halfis being put off until the future and if the owners,ofthe northerly property have any concerns for the outcome of Shoreline Lane. Ms. Randall state<! that Mr. Bachman was in attendance at the meeting. The Official Map is designed to address long term issues. If the Official Map does not indicate a cul-de-sac to the northern end, and the plan is to construct a cul-de-sac in the future, there would be nothing to prevent Mr. Bachman from constructing a building in the way of the future road. The City may then incur additional costs to acquire the property in the future, as the City would be acquiring a building as well. . The Official Map is in place to prevent the property owner from building in the way of the road and to allow the landowners to prepare their properties for acquisition. If the City Council were to adopt one of the two options presented by Staff, the City would not have to plat the property at this time and construct the cul-de-sac. The northern cul-de-sac could simply be on the Official Map to assist the landowners in any future development plans.