PC 05-01-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY I, 2002 5 , Chair Sand requested the traffic report show volumes over time, as well as the impact it would have on the City Park, He stated access to that park was necessary and the access off of Lexington A venue would be used for the park. He stated access to the park had to bc takcn into account. He asked how they were going to prevent people from winding their way through the campus and existing onto Hamline Avenue. Mr. Larson stated this was a possibility, but it would not be a convenient way to get to Hamline Avenue. He stated through the design of the roads and parking lot, as well as the design of the campus, would addrcss traffic cutting across to Hamlinc Avenue. Chair Sand stated he was concemed the traffic engineer had not addressed Femwood. He asked if Fernwood would still be a drivable surface if it would be eventually vacated. Mr. Larson stated Fernwood would be a service road for emergency and service vehicles only. He statcd using Femwood would not be an advantage for employees to access or leave the campus from Fernwood. Pat Kren, I230 Wyncrest Court, stated Guidant had been a good neighbor. He stated it was not necessary to combine all of their lots into one lot at this time. He indicated this would not solve their problem, He stated the aceess to Cummings Park was Femwood A venue and this was very much appreciated by the parents as a direct access to the park. He stated if Fernwood Avenue was vacated, there would be more traffic on Lexington Avenue. He expressed coneem about adding anothcr light on Lexington and the backup that would create. He stated as a member of the Park/Trails Recreation Committee, he proposed that Femwood Avenuc not be vacated to allow acccss to Cummings Park. e Bill Frank, 1228 Wymidge Drive, stated he was in favor of development generally and was generally in favor of the development of this site. However, he had two concems. First, the process irregularities and inefficiencies, and second, the staff rcport and recommendations lacked the interest to protect the interest of the community. He stated Fernwood Avenue was a major thoroughfare. He indicated there was no Master Plan, and no study of the impacts on tbe area. He indicated there was no substantial community involvement. He asked where the Master Plan was that would justify the vacation of Femwood Avenue. He stated without the Master Plan, Guidant should not be here tonight. He asked where the traffic study was, and why was Guidant making this request at this time without the traffic study. He asked if the City knew what impacts this was going to have on the community. He asked where the EIS was, and was it consistent with the Comprehensive plan. He asked where the County's approval was. He stated with all of this missing information, this application should be denied. He stated the staff report was inaccurate and summarized what he believed was inaccurate in thc report. He asked if staff had looked at the impact this development would have on Cummings Park with the increased use of the park. He stated the Master Plan needed to be presented and approved before this should move allY further forward. He stated the plat application was premature; there was no justification for it at this time. He stated all of the items and concems he had spoken about needed to be addressed by Guidant before the Commission approved or even considered this request. . Judy Frank, 1228 Wymidge Drive, stated shc did not trust Guidant and she did not trust the architects. She stated the reason for her feeling this was that two months ago Guidallt had a meeting with the residents and the residents expressed their concems and the residents never heard anything again from Guidant. She expressed concern that Guidant