06/14/2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 14, 2004 APPROVED 430 •431 City Planner Smyser reviewed the request, indicating most of the project is within the MUSA, 432 however a small portion is outside the MUSA, which is why additional MUSA will be needed. He 433 indicated the same is true with zoning, whereas 40 acres is zoned R-1, and 4-5 acres are zoned Rural. 434 435 City Planner Smyser reviewed the site plan thoroughly, indicating Staff is recommending denial of 436 the project for the following reasons: 437 o The City's growth management policy and subdivision ordinance prohibit development 438 outside of defined growth boundaries. The proposed plat extends beyond the stage 1 439 growth area, the MUSA, the Low Density Sewered Residential land use area, and the R-1 440 zone. The proposer requests amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map to 441 accommodate the extra acres of development. It also would require the vacation of parts 442 of a ponding and flowage easement. There is no clear justification for these actions other 443 than to increase developable area. 444 o Section 1002-6 of the subdivision ordinance lists criteria for determining if a proposed 445 development is premature. These include consistency with the land use plan, including 446 the staged growth area boundaries. A project that is inconsistent with these criteria is 447 premature. 448 o We do not yet know if water service is adequate. If it is not, the project is premature. 449 450 Councilmember Carlson asked about the length of the cul-de-sac. City Planner Smyser showed the 451 proposed road layout, noting that at some time the road would connect and would no longer be a cul - 452 de -sac; however until then it would be very long. 453 •454 Mayor Bergeson asked if only the 40 acres were being proposed, and the units outside the growth 455 lines were not there, if Staff's recommendation would be different. City Planner Smyser indicated it 456 would, because the major issue is that it exceeds the growth boundaries. 457 458 Councilmember Dahl asked for clarification on how much Staff sees the one ingress/egress as an 459 issue. City Planner Smyser stated the problem is the neighborhood to the west was not done properly, 460 and showed where the road should have been stubbed so it could connect to the parcel in question. 461 He indicated the problem was not created by this owner, and to say there is only one access point so 462 this parcel cannot develop is not appropriate. 463 464 Councilmember Dahl questioned if the parcel below this would be developed soon. City Planner 465 Smyser advised it is intended to remain un-sewered through the 2020 plan. 466 467 City Planner Smyser briefly discussed the greenway situation noted by the Environmental Board. He 468 advised it is really a conceptual greenway, and it is not realistic to think they will get all of the 469 greenway, but he feels some would be appropriate. 470 471 Councilmember Stoltz asked for clarification on the rules concerning the applicant coming back with 472 another plan. City Planner Smyser indicated the zoning ordinance says that if a conditional use 473 permit or re -zoning request is denied the applicant cannot come back for a year. He noted the 474 subdivision ordinance does not have that provision, so if the applicant came back with a plan that 475 does not require rezoning he would not have to wait. •476 10