04/10/1996 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Troy Weigold, Cinnamon Teal Court, distributed a graph illustrating data he and other neighbors had collected from a survey of residents in the Wenzel Farm area. Almost all of the residents preferred option D. Mr. Weigold felt OSM Engineering had failed to work with the residents in reducing the number of design options and coming to an agreement on the design. Mr. Weigold noted OSM had presented an option 5 or C1. Some of the residents were in favor of this option. He stated he felt OSM is not addressing the citizens concerns but only the concerns of the Superintendent. He stated OSM has not presented data of the impact of any of the designs on the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Elm Street. He expressed his concern with the trees on site. He questioned if the trees removed could be sold for firewood to help fund the road project. He felt there was not enough specific information being provided to make an informed decision. Kim Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Lane, stated she agreed with much of what Mr. Weigold had expressed. She felt an easier solution would have been obtained if the City would have discussed this project with the citizens in the earlier planning stages. She stated she believed Option C1 had been developed with the input of the citizens. 100% of the citizens are not in favor of option C1 but it will produce the minimal impact to the most people. She stated the citizens are not fighting placement of a signal light on Highway 49. Citizens are concerned with the safety issue. She was concerned that a pedestrian survey had not been completed. She felt this was necessary and believed the City would have full resident support. She advocated a flashing yellow light at the intersection of Elm Street and Highway 49 to mark the crosswalk. She stated the citizens did not want a lot of traffic on Elm Street and Elm Street was not in condition to support a lot of additional traffic. She asked that a condition be included for no parking on Elm Street. Ms. Sullivan stated she was concerned with the balance of residential, commercial and industrial properties in the overall development plan of the area. She asked that the Tree Preservation Plan be reviewed carefully before approval. She was concerned that a buffer be provided between the school and the citizens. She noted the Minnesota Department of Education Facilities had submitted their Planning Design Guidelines of a comparison for the proposed athletic fields. She suggested this be taken into consideration but the City look at the site individually and make the best decision based on what would fit in this space and design. 9