Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends denial of cul-de-sac variance for Wickstrom Estate South
Summary
The Elk Grove Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of a variance request to shorten a proposed cul-de-sac for the preliminary plat named Wickstrom Estate South. Staff said the design fails the three statutory "practical difficulties" criteria; the applicant said he will appeal to the City Council.
The Elk Grove Planning Commission on Wednesday recommended denial of a variance request that would allow a cul-de-sac shorter than the 500-foot minimum required by the city’s subdivision ordinance for the preliminary plat proposed as Wickstrom Estate South.
The request, filed for Parcel ID 6763002 by applicant Jerry Bauer, would shorten the cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision, a change Bauer said was needed after survey and DNR feedback prevented roadway access through an adjacent parcel. “I want to maximize my development…we can't enter that back cul-de-sac,” Bauer told commissioners, adding the alternative layout would reduce the number of lots he can create if the cul-de-sac is not shortened.
City contract planner Claire summarized the legal standard the commission must apply: the city’s subdivision ordinance requires a minimum cul-de-sac length of 500 feet and variances must meet the three-part “practical difficulties” test used by state law. Claire said the application emerged after the preliminary plat had been withdrawn earlier for DNR and survey comments and that the revised layout produced the short cul-de-sac now under review.
In public comment, a nearby resident asked when signs reading “cul de sac possibly extended at a future date” would be acted on; commissioners explained those signs are used to indicate a potential future extension and are part of recorded plat history. The commission also received a written opposition from a nearby resident raising concerns about wildlife, wetlands, and runoff.
Commissioners discussed alternative designs, including a second cul-de-sac and alignment changes, but staff and the commission noted constraints from Sealy Brook and DNR shoreland/buildable-area rules that limit where lots and roads can be placed. Commissioners repeatedly said they were unable to identify non-economic “practical difficulties” created by conditions other than the lot owner’s development goals. Commissioner discussion repeatedly returned to the same point: the code’s practical-difficulty test is narrow and generally requires a hardship not created by the landowner.
After discussion, a motion to recommend denial and to adopt the staff report carried unanimously. The applicant said he intends to appeal to the City Council. Chair Johnson and staff noted that any future preliminary plat resubmittal will require a new public hearing and that council action will be the next step if Bauer files an appeal.
The commission’s action applied only to the cul-de-sac variance; any review of the full preliminary plat, if resubmitted, will be a separate, later hearing.
