CCP 03-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-n-~ ~ y Arden IJills P)anninl1 Commission - March 3. 1999 10 cul-de-sac is proposed at a 50-foot radius. She suggested that the Planning Commission could tit require the 60-foot radius cul-de-sac and the dedication of the northern portion of property to allow for a straight through option or the cul-de-sac option in the future, which ever is desired. Acting Chair Nelson confmned that, if the Planning Commission were to consider Option A, leaving a straight through road to the north, and the Bachman property owner wanted a cul-de- sac, they would have to acquire additional land from Josephine East LLC or the Hanson development. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Acting Chair Nelson asked, if the north section or shoreline were run to the south edge of the Bachman property, how long would the road be. Ms. Randall explained that it would be 270 feet to the dead-end and 80 feet across the Bachman property for a total of 350 feet. Commissioner Duchenes expressed her concern that if the road to the north is left as is and a cul- de-sac were constructed to the south, over the long term an additional cul-de-sac may affect the buildable area of the Hanson property. She indicated that the owners of the Hanson property could pull a buildjng permit now and build in such a way as to infringe on the 40-foot setback for the cul-de-sac. I(the cul-de-sac were constructed, the development on the Hanson property would becorne nonconforming. Ms. Randall stated that if either Option A or B were approved, depicting a future cul-de-sac on the north section of Shoreline Lane on the Official Map, and a building permit is requested, the _ applicant would be required to maintain a 40 foot setback from the cul-de-sac right-of-way, even . if the cul-de-sac has not yet been constructed. Commission Duchenes expressed her concern that if the road to the north is left as is, a future cul-de-sac may cost the City additional money to acquire additional property. She stated that, if the property were dedicated to the City on the plat now, this would eliminate the need to acquire property in the future. She suggested that Option A would be the least disruptive to the existing conditions and any future development. Commissioner Galatowitsch reiterated that she does not understand the need for a cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the road. Mr. Rekuski noted that with Option A, lot three would be reduced by approximately 2,500 square feet. With Option B, no land would be taken frorn lot three and only a small portion would be lost on the properties to the north. He suggested moving the cul-de-sacs on Option A up, with an easement in between them. Acting Chair Nelson stated that the City would then be required to take property from the Hanson property. Commissioner Baker noted that, if a mistake is made now, it could be costly to fix in the future. Commissioner Baker moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes to recommend approval of Planning Case #9~-OI, amendment to the City's Official Map, utilizing Option A as presented by - the Staff, conditioned on a finding by the City Engineer that this Option is acceptable. . Commissioner Galatowitsch noted that Option A depicts two cul-de-sacs back-to-back. She asked what the advantage of the northern cul-de-sac would be. Commissioner Baker explained