CCP 11-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 29, 2001 7 zoned neighborhood business. He asked how this traffic would be reduced. Mr. Kjersten responded the bus service would reduce traffic. He also stated patterns for student commuters do not typically mirror workforce commuter times. Ms. Liz Modesette, 3743 New Brighton Road, stated the project seems to be moving ahead so quickly. She noted her neighborhood sees a significant environmental impact from the project. She added she had a keen interest in seeing the grading plan. She stated if an environmental worksheet was completed, she would like to see it shared with the neighborhood. She noted she would like to see some time spend studying the impact on her neighborhood. She added her understanding of the PUD process was that it was in exchange for some public purpose. She stated she sees only benefits for Bethel College and the contractor. She noted that as recently as June, the contractor proposed a two-story office building on the same site. She added the neighborhood is prepared to send a petition to the state. Sbe stated they were not against the development of the property. She noted only Bethel College and the contractor would benefit from an expedited process. She added the intersection is a major concern. She stated there were many issues including the height and the size of the parking. She noted her concern about the wetlands. She added traffic was a significant concern. She stated a traffic light would not solve the problem on County Road E2. She noted that perhaps the city could leverage its position, to move up the reconstruction of the bridge Mr. Parrish stated an EA W was not required. He noted the Applicant did receive a Development Permit from Rice Creek Watershed District. Ms. Barb Piatrowski, 3766 Brighton Way, stated she spoke against this project. She noted that when she was on the Planning Commission, she fought against an office building on this site. She added she wanted a softer use for that site. She stated she wanted a business that would be more appropriate for the neighborhood, like a medical clinic or hair salon. She noted her sense was that the Planning Commission accepted the plan because it was not in their backyard. She added they stood to lose a lot of green space. She stated she did not see anything left there. She noted traffic on the bridge was problematic. She added it has had many accidents for years. She added by adding15% more cars per day to County Road E2 and Cleveland Avenue, they would be adding 10, 600 cars there. She gave revised average daily traffics (ADT's) for each of the streets. She stated she understood the responsibility from the Metropolitan Council to provide affordable housing. She noted she sees more of a traffic problem after five years. She added the city had the TCAAP site. She added the city would have more federal housing mandated at that time then they would be able to handle. She stated she beseeched the Council not to approve this use. She noted the time has come that citizens would accept something on that site. She added she apologized for not making it to the Planning Commission meeting. She complained that she was denied the names and phone numbers ofthe Planning Commission members. Mr. Parrish stated the traffic numbers in the area he quoted were based on 1997 numbers. He stated he did not know the protocol regarding releasing home phone numbers of the Planning Commission members. He noted he asked the Commissioners and they were not comfortable with that. He added the Commissioners preferred comments come through staff via letter or email.