Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Peterson questioned what the rest of Council felt would be good to serve as a <br />buffer. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman responded that the area should be light industrial. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued pertaining to townhomes. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik commented that if the concern is about the 80 acres north of C.R. #116, residents to the <br />north (in Peltzer Addition) were in favor of residential versus industrial. This urban development <br />would be impacted by the wetland there. Lot would have to be larger because of the wetland - two <br />lots to an acre because of wetland/shoreland regulations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated that the land to the west of County Road #56 and south of 149th <br />will be developed when sewer is voted in. He inquired if by adopting this document, would that <br />cause a rezoning to which Ms. Frolik replied no. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder added that if you adopt something tonight, we would "ship" it to the Metropolitan <br />Council. Who knows what will happen once it gets to them. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik stated this is not your last look at this. Does it say what you are saying - if not - tell us <br />what changes you want and we will send it back for changes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson inquired about the area just north of the proposed extension of C.R. <br />#116, west of C.R. #56. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik replied that area is industrial. She commented on an 80-acre residential area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson suggested that Met Council may raise red flags because of the traffic on <br />Highway #10 if we show all that as residential development. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder felt that industrial would have more of an impact on Highway #10 traffic than <br />residential. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson summarized we will have the area west of C.R. #56 as it is presently <br />zoned (commercial/industrial) because of uncertainty of utility services. On the east side, I am <br />okay with that one "chunk" up there next to Peltzer Addition. We have a strip of commercial on <br />C.R. #56, and the rest is single family. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that they have been talking about going back as far as 600' with <br />the medians. They would restrict left tums. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman questioned if there is a risk having residential that close to the landfill. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder advised that the plume of water contamination is not running in the area to that <br />proposed plat. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik reported that a couple of residents in Peltzer Addition want to know if they can hook up <br />to City waten <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson suggested keeping the land west of County Road #56 <br />commercial/industrial until they can be expanded in the MUSA (between 83 and south of the <br />present development). <br /> <br />Special City Council/Comp Plan/January 23, 1996 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />