Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 9, 2009 <br />Page 5 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br /> <br />A. Kraus-Anderson, 49/J Update <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser informed the board that the Council Work Session on Tuesday, September 8 <br />included a discussion with developer Kraus Anderson regarding a proposal for a “big <br />box” grocer to be located on the 17-acre site north west of the 49/J Intersection. Mr. <br />Smyser stated that the city has not yet received an application for this project, so there is <br />no formal project to review at this time. Staff ex plained that the discussion at the Council <br />Work Session was at the developer’s request. The d eveloper was seeking reaction from <br />the council, as the next step would be to generate a traffic analysis to determine what <br />would need to happen if this project were to go for ward. The developer held two <br />neighborhood meetings, neither of which was hosted by the city. Kraus Anderson <br />showed the council a potential plan of the site. S enior housing may be proposed, but no <br />user has been determined. City Council reaction se emed to be mixed. Questions were <br />raised regarding a 24-hour business, senior housing , etc. Staff wanted the Planning and <br />Zoning Board to be aware of the situation and reite rated that there is no project to review, <br />therefore no recommendation is needed. <br /> <br />Staff is not aware of any anticipated timing for an application to be submitted. <br /> <br />Mike Witham, 211 Woodridge Lane, commented that he realizes that no formal plan has <br />been submitted. However, speaking for his neighbor s, they wanted to state that the plan <br />the neighbors were shown does not seem to mesh with the master plan for this area. They <br />are aware of traffic issues. The neighbors feel th e master plan was a good plan and they <br />would like to see it carried out. <br /> <br />Mr. Smsyer explained that staff used assumptions of what could develop when creating <br />the master plan for the area. He noted that Anoka County based their review on different <br />analyses. At the time the master plan was created, the county said they would not allow a <br />traffic signal at this location. There is potentia l that the county could change their <br />decision regarding a signal. If this proposal were to go through, the master plan would <br />need to be revised. <br /> <br />Staff has discussed alternate potential locations w ith the developer. <br /> <br />Mike Witham added that the neighborhood has additio nal concerns in excess of traffic. <br />They believe that a single piece of property should not change the entire master plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Tralle commented that the city and boards can p lan for a development, and hope for a <br />direction, however until a developer wants to do so mething, the plan does no good. He <br />said a good example is Legacy at Woods Edge, in whi ch development was hoped for and <br />it has not happened. <br /> <br />B. Comprehensive Plan Update <br /> <br />Mr. Smyser stated that the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the <br />Metropolitan Council on August 28. By statute, the Met Council has 120 days to review