08-22-2016 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES August 22, 2016 APPROVED 90 postponement of the resolution on this matter; the city attorney will be consulted on the addition of 91 language regarding those concerns. 92 93 Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. 94 95 There being no one present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. 96 97 Mayor Reinert moved to postpone consideration of Resolution No. 1640 pending a discussion with 98 the city attorney and further council review. Council Member Kusterman seconded the motion. 99 Motion carried on a voice vote. 100 101 613) St. Clair Estates 102 i) Consider Resolution No. 16-78 Approving Variance and Preliminary Plat 103 City Planner Larsen noted the St. Clair Estates development and previous council direction postponing 104 consideration. Approval of a variance and a preliminary plat are now being brought forward again for 105 consideration. 106 Ms. Larsen reviewed a presentation including: 107 - Location of the proposed project; 108 - A neighborhood map indicating surroundings of the proposed development area; 109 - The preliminary plat map; 110 - Inclusion of a bike trail, a sidewalk and an emergency access/pedestrian trail; i 11 - Comprehensive Plan consistency; 112 - Project density (gross and net density indicated); 113 - Consistency with zoning requirements. 114 Ms. Larsen indicated a focus has developed regarding traffic, access to Birch Street and the length of the 115 cul-de-sac included in the project. She intends to provide more information on those areas. 116 Traffic —all developers are required to submit a traffic study with a development such as this including 117 traffic counts. The traffic information gained on this project indicated in a study does not project traffic 118 that will exceed 1,000 trips per day. The study also includes information on levels of service. 119 Information was presented on what criteria the city's subdivision ordinance includes that would indicate 12o that this is a premature development; that criteria is not met. 121 On the question of access to Birch Street, Ms. Larsen recalled a corridor study done recently that 122 examined Birch Street. Staff did review this proposal in light of this corridor study and found it to be in 123 compliance with the findings of that study. Included in the study was right ins/right outs. Staff did ask 124 the developer what would happen if Hokah Drive became a right in/right out access, noting that would be 125 a county driven decision. The study results of that scenario were reviewed and they still met the under 126 1,000 trips per day criteria. Ms. Larsen introduced Doug Fisher, Anoka County Engineer, present to 127 speak on the subject. 3