My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 07-11-2005
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CC 07-11-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:13 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 12:08:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />JULY 11, 2005 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />owned the land, but the City was the people and the people wanted a more environmentally <br />friendly development, such as a residential development. She asked what would happen when the <br />vegetation was gone when this development was put in with respect to the wetland. She noted <br />this area was a wetland area and was subject to flooding. She stated if the wetlands were <br />classified as type 3 that these were protected wetlands which required a water management plan <br />and she encouraged them that this was taken care of. She understood that Rice Creek Watershed <br />would be taking care ofthis. She asked them to deny the Resolution. <br /> <br />Erik Hauth-Schmid, 1313 Karth Lake Circle, stated he was here because this was very <br />important to him to discuss this. He stated Karth Lake Circle had one way in and out of their <br />development and even in the best of times, it was difficult to turn left. He stated they were very <br />concerned about them being able to use Hamline if there was an access from this development on <br />Hamline Avenue. He believed this would be a serious impact on their quality of life. He asked <br />Council to consider not approving the plan as presented. He stated they were concerned that the <br />marketing of this development should not impact their quality oflife. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ciudy Owen, 4490 Hamline Avenue North, stated she was opposed to this development <br />because of traffic concerns. She noted with the Guidant development, this had put a tremendous <br />amount of traffic on Hamline Avenue. She asked Council to consider the expansion of Guidant in <br />the next few years. She stated the people of the City lived on Hamline Avenue and asked them to <br />consider this when voting on this property. She stated she had spoken with the Ramsey County <br />Sheriff about this development and he had stated if he had been asked, he would have <br />recommended the County also do a traffic study. <br /> <br />Tony Tredal, 4521 Keithson Drive, stated tonight's meeting was very informative and thanked <br />Council for their time. She stated if they looked at the objectives for everyone involved, the City <br />had an objective to create tax revenue, and the developer wanted to market that particular piece of <br />property to the best of their ability and to make a profit, and the residents wanted to not improve <br />the property, or to delay the development of the property. She noted the Council had the power to <br />make the decision and the residents had empowered the Council to protect the best interest ofthe <br />residents. She suggested the Council delay this development to answer all of the concerns and <br />questions brought forward at the various meetings. She asked Council to make sure this <br />development met all of the City's long-term goals. She asked Council to exercise their power. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Kathy Sukke, 1286 Karth Lake Circle, stated when she moved into Karth Lake Circle, they <br />could not go more than 35 mph on Hamline Avenue, so she appreciated the change to Hamline <br />Avenue. She pointed out that the daycare center entrance did not mach up with Karth Lake Circle <br />and this created a problem when both vehicles wanted to take a left. She stated she opposed the <br />project as planned, but she did not oppose the development of the property. She stated she <br />believed there were a lot of unanswered questions and recommended they delay a decision on this. <br />She asked who would pay when the daycare center would flood if this development went in. She <br />expressed concern about the safety of the neighborhood with the additional traffic, as well as the <br />increase in police traffic on Hamline Avenue. She stated this access would not work and without <br />the developer's traffic engineer in attendance tonight, she did not believe Council would approve <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.