04/10/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES The lowest opening was also requ ired to be at least 1 foot above the emergency overflow. Approval from Rice Creek Watershed was also needed. Staff explained the current status of th e City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the associated MUSA allocation prevented th e City from moving forward with this application. He stated, in addition, there were several preliminary plat issues that needed to be resolved, including the revi ew by Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff recommended tabeling the action on the MUSA allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat requests to obtain additiona l information and modifications as contained in staff’s report. Ms. Lane asked how the Comprehensive Plan had this area zoned. Mr. Grochala replied it was zoned Low Density sewered residential, and this plan met that zoning requirement. Mr. Rafferty asked what MUSA meant and the importance of MUSA. Mr. Grochala explained what MUSA meant and why it was important. Chair Schaps asked why this project was ou tside the moratorium. Mr. Grochala stated when the City Council was approving the moratorium, this development application had been submitted that day. Council elected to accept any applicati ons received as of January 14, 2002 and therefore, this deve lopment was allowed to come through. Mr. Rafferty stated it appeared the Anoka County’s concern wa s regarding the speed limit and the amount of additional traffic. He asked how would this development affect the current residents in the ar ea. Mr. Grochala replied one of the purposes of getting a street through was to provide access to the de velopment to the east. He indicated by providing the street at the particular loca tion would provide for two access points to a future development. He stated the wetlands might also create a problem for street access. He indicated they would look at all options. He stated their major plan would be to put a sign up indicating that a road may go through at so me point in the future. He stated in the past, the problems from the existing resident s occurred when the residents did not know that the road was planned to go through. Mr. Rafferty asked if it was a concept to c onnect east Holly to west Holly. Mr. Grochala replied it was a concept plan and it w ould provide a good connect ion through the City. He stated the problem with Birch Street wa s that there was no other alternative road to use. If east Holly and west Holly were connect ed at some point in the future, this would create another traffic alternative. Mr. Corson asked if the Met Council wanted th e future land plans be consistent with the zoning, there would be no action taken for severa l months. Mr. Grochala stated this was a decision they would have to make. He st ated he was not comfortable at this time making this kind of a decision. Mr. Corson stated considering the land use pl an had not been approved, they should not be making any decision on this developmen t until that issue had been resolved.