11-28-2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 28, 2012 at the November 19th workshop as well as additional conditions that were developed from the meeting the City had with Ramsey County and the Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood. The Administrator noted that both the City Council and MN DOT just received this report this evening. Blesener indicated that the City is in receipt of the letter from Matt Tebbutt, 197 Viking Drive, as well as the petition from Heather Oaks indicating that they did not support a sound wall in the Viking Drive area. Blesener asked how MN DOT tabulated the votes from the Viking Drive area relative to the sound wall survey. Read reported that only the addresses along Viking Drive were counted — 8 addresses in Heather Oaks and 4 addresses in Viking Estates. The City Administrator reported that it is staff's recommendation that the public hearing on municipal consent be held this evening, and that action then be tabled to give the City an opportunity to work through the conditions list with MN DOT. He noted that the conditions list is an effort to protect Little Canada from both a short -term and long -term perspective relative to this project. The Administrator also indicated that MN DOT has been very cooperative to date. Blesener asked if there was anyone from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Tom Ponik, 191 Viking Drive, questioned the need for the City to survey the Viking Drive residents. He pointed out the overwhelming opposition to the wall as evidenced by the results of the MN DOT survey. Blesener indicated that people do change their minds, and he wanted to ensure that property owners understood that this was their only chance to get a sound wall in this area. Ponik pointed out that the residents present this evening do not want the sound wall and understand the implications of voting against it. Ponik noted that in the materials he reviewed there was the recommendation that the dollars that would be used for the sound wall should be redirected to other visual screening. Ponik asked what "other visual screening" meant. The City Administrator stated that that mean landscaping. The Administrator reported that at the open house on the project some residents supported plantings rather than the sound wall, and some residents indicated that they did not want to lose sight lines. The Administrator indicated that an additional survey would be helpful to clarify the landscaping issue. Ponik indicated that he supported landscaping, but not construction of an earth wall. Ponik stated that he wanted to ensure that "other visual screening" did not mean an earth wall. Blesener and Keis indicated that natural plantings are what would be considered. 4