CC_Minutes_2011_1017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 17,2011 Page 14 At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom advised that, as part of the feasibility and design stages, if and when a project was ordered by the City Council, staff would proceed through that assessment process, including environmental steps, as a statutory requirement of that Chapter 429 process. Mayor Roe questioned the process for environmental review should the City Council order a project and decide to fund it other than through assessments; with Ms. Bloom responding that, while staff would review all the issues in a compara- ble process, it would not be required through a state-mandated process. While other projects were discussed to determine their similarities and whether environmental thresholds were triggers, Councilmember McGehee opined that those other examples were not in areas with a DNR wetland immediately adjacent to them. Council Discussion Mayor Roe summarized the options available to the City Council, as detailed in the Request for Council Action(RCA) dated October 17, 2011; and sought indi- vidual City Councilmember comment. Councilmember Willmus provided a background of his thought process throughout this entire discussion from 1989 when the Lexington Apartments and K-Mart discussion were going on through George Reiling development compa- nies; and his thought that the development of 350 units for the Lexington Apart- ments was too intense of a use of that parcel. Councilmember Willmus opined that the existence of those uses today resulted from those discussions, with single- family homes built along the C-2 right-of-way and cul-de-sac, and high-density housing and the small commercial strip adjacent to Woodhill. At that time, Councilmember Willmus opined that the genesis of the idea was created with the perception that the street would be vacated without retaining the right-of-way. Councilmember Willmus noted that this was not true, since a condition of the original Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement with Mr. Reiling was that, if the City chose to vacate the right-of-way, Mr. Reiling would not contest that vacation. Ultimately, Councilmember Willmus advised, the motion to vacate the right-of-way failed on a 3/2 vote of the City Council, and the right-of-way re- mained in existence yet today; with the intents of the C-2 design by Ramsey County for the it to be completed in phases over time, with eventual connection of C-2 to move traffic east/west from Snelling Avenue to Victoria Street. Councilmember Willmus noted that the issue continued to come up today, and pe- riodically since 1989: whether to open C-2 or not. Prior to the most recent traffic study, Councilmember Willmus stated that he thought that opening up C-2 was absolutely the right thing to do. After receiving the most recent traffic study, and mitigation options and scenarios in that study, Councilmember Willmus advised that it wasn't completely apparent