08-08-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 18, 2005 6 one that went to the State and he had requested a copy of that report, but he had not received the report until he came to the meeting tonight. He stated they did have to consider the EA Wand noted there were certain State guidelines that needed to be followed for an EAW. He noted the Council needed to make a determination as to whether there was a potential for a significant environmental review. He indicated the threshold for an EA W was 200,000 square feet, while their project was under the threshold significantly. He noted if there were valid concerns of an environmental impact, then that needed to be addressed, but he did not believe this development would have a significant environmental impact. He stated they had worked closely with staff and did a lot of compromising. He believed the issues had been addressed. He stated he had 25 years of experience in planning with 16 years of those years as a consultant for Cities. He stated he had experience in land use planning and he believed they were bringing a quality project to the City. He indicated the development was appropriate for this land use. He stated they had come forward with a very good project and this was a perfect development for this area. He stated it was designed to blend into the residential neighborhood to the south. He indicated change was hard, but this project would be the best they could get for this parcel in this area. Council member Larson requested they close the public comment period. Mayor Aplikowski agreed and did so at 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Larson stated he had done a lot of homework on tbis and answered many phone calls and emails. He noted there was no such thing as a perfect decision, but at some point they needed to make a decision. He stated he was speaking only for himself, but he tried to make sure he understood the proposal and the residents' concerns. He noted he understood there was a concern with the access on Hamline Avenue, which he spoke about at the last meeting, in addition to signage and parking. He stated one thing he saw with the emails, was that the citizens did not want to develop this property. He noted the City had always intended to replenish the funds that they used for the new Maintenance facility by selling this land. He stated personally, he did not believe the City could afford to make this a public park because the cost would be 1.3 million dollars. He stated this area was never targeted for park or open space. He indicated 1,500 acres would be left as open space and parkland in the TCAAP development He stated there was no basis for a need for additional park and open space. He stated he had a hard time coming up with justification for not doing anything on this site. He noted the developer had a good plan in terms of appearance. He stated this was not a good location for residential development, but believed this development would look similar to a townhome development with attractive buildings. He noted the buildings would provide a buffer to Highway 96 noise. He acknowledged this was not a perfect solution, but what the developer had proposed was a good solution for the City. He stated he did not support and he would not vote for an access onto Hamline Avenue. He stated Hamline Avenue would only get busier and there was not a good solution, but by returning an easement, if in the future an access was needed, it could be added. He stated by not adding it now, they eliminated a lengthy road and would not create an unsafe access. He indicated he was not comfortable with the signage as proposed. He noted he had looked at other developments and generally these lypes of dcvelopments did not havc as much signage as they were proposing. He stated he would not vote for this is if the development was "cluttered" up with signs. He indicated he could compromise and let a larger monument sign on Highway 96 be put in place. He statcd he 6 . . .