CCP 03-31-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ _ _ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 2,2002 . -. _. - . .. -,-,.'. ,. ,-.' . 4 etc. on Guidant Drive were in pll1ce. He indicated Femwood would probably be reconstructed in phases; it would not happen at! at once. ' Commissioner Ricke asked if they would need' all' updated traffic study at the end of Phase 2. Mr. Parrish replied they could do a traffic study at the end of each phasl\ if the Commission wanted, and tbiscould be made as a condition. Comm:issionerRicke asked if Guidant could build tra:ils ort the campus, instead of a monetary park dedication. Mr. Reimer replied there we,resOme trailS in place noW, and they were considering adding additiollal trails on the cainpus. He stated they were working with staff and the Parks Department on this issue. Chair Sand invited the public to make comment. Jim Paulet, 1285 WyncteSt Coll'rt, stated herepresenfed the neighborhood group that had worked with Guidant. He stated his conunents were essentially the Same as he made at the recent neighbothood meeting. He stated the neighborhood group was made up of Midetitsofthe WyhCreslneiglibomood. He indicated they had reCeived sOme criticism fut tliem8k:e up of the group, but effurts were made to include people inthesurtOunding fRligliborhtiods.He stated they 'Were originally concetned abouftraffic issues, bUilding h'eights;theplan tovl!Cate Femwood andthenotificatiol1 requirements. He noted they felt the neighborhood meetings were very productive ,and they felt there had been significant compromises> on GIlidant'spart. Heoutlinedthe major acoomplishtnentsthey had made ,with Gtlidlmt.l'Iellta:ted at notmie was it the goal ttHltoptI\e'(JXplltlsion plan, but rather to hav-e<some say With Guidant on the expaitsion:He Stilted the t'esidents were also very concerned iliattl1e>phailing plan be watched and folldWedvery closely and that MnDoT, the CoUrtty, and the City make sure that all of the infrastructures were in place. Pat Krellh, 1m Wynerest Court, stated they really likedGuidantgetnngrid of the 40- fOOt'toWer 011' the Nestlepro~. 'He stated he hoped this development'did not stick up abovethetreestoomuch,Hestated he liked what th~y did wilhthe parking lot. He stated he would ,like' toilee the time changed for eVeuingacces~t\:) Femwood beginning at 5:30 p.m. instead of 6:00 p.m. He stated he liked thecotnnlent to' do a traffic study after each phase. hulStodda'td, 13'13 Katth'Lake Circle, agreed with Ihe other speakers and stated Guidairt had been' a good neighbor, and even though he Was not anxious to see the development tlike pll1ce, it was at least being done in a reasoilablemanner. He asked if the traffic study that had been done took into account the two new proposed entrances along COUrtty Road F and asked if they would have some type of traffic control at County Road F and Hamline. Mr. Parrish replied that was an improvement they had been talking about with the County. Mr. Reimer replied the new entrai1ces were included in the traffic study. bill Franke, 1228 Wynridge Drive, stated this was not turning out quite as he expected. With respectto the Master Plan, he felt very comfOrtable to where the Master Plan had gone. However, Guidant was asking the City to make decisions about things without a Development Agreement. He asked why that had not been discussed with the Commission. He stated he did not oppose the Master Plan, but'he wanted to know that the