CCP 09-25-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- -- I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 11. 1995 5 .1 I lYfr. Chapin felt the traffic study was inadequate. He noted the study compared the traffic from this development to 18 single family homes. He believed this was inappropriate because there is no I indication that 18 Single Family homes could be built on this site. He also noted the information was based on information from 1993, which is outdated. Mr. Chapin noted the comment period was until August 31, 1995 and urged the Council to postpone I their decision until September 25, 1995 to obtain additional information. Mr. Jay Schrankler, 1748 Venus Avenue, noted the EA W was completed prior to the remodeling I of Valentine Hills Elementary School. He felt this addition of impervious surface and additional I drainage issues should be addressed. Mr. Shrankler indicated if the Shoreland Management requirements are being upheld, the clear I cutting of trees would be prohibited, He noted in this proposed development there would be three acres of clear cutting. Mr. Shrankler also urged the City Council to take additional time for gathering information. I Mr. Craig Wilson, 1677 County Road F West, expressed concern for EA W, he believed the -I answers were too brief to the questions proposed by commentators. He noted many residents spent many hours preparing and researching, to comment in an intelligent way, asking pertinent questions only to receive curt answers. I Mr. Wilson expressed concern for drainage with the addition of hard surfaces, not only from the, development, but also from new surrounding construction such as; the Valentine Hills Elementary I School, County Road F, and construction at Bethel College. Mr. Wilson did not feel a comprehensive review of the area had been done in the EA W. He I expressed concern that future residents coming to the City would not receive relief when their property is flooded. I Ms. Fran Holmes, 1804 Venus Avenue, presented the Council with a memo and information. She noted residents spent quit<;,a bit of time speaking in regard to the Planned Unit Development at the I Planning Commission meeting and she felt comments were ignored by the Commission. She encouraged the Council to send the PUD back to the Planning Commission for further review. Ms. Holmes indicated she believed the development should not only be suggested to follow I shoreland regulations, but be included in the Shoreland Map, She noted in the Shoreland Management Regulations, "clear cutting trees" is prohibited, yet in this development over 60% of I trees will be removed. - . I I