Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />b) The Developer's Traffic, Study'-idicales (hat 72 dolly Ilght and medium truck <br />trips and G daily combInotIon or semi- ire ller !ruck. trips would use County Road <br />11-2. Along OulncyStreet, the Traffic Study Indicates 50dolly light end medium <br />trips and 6dallycombination orseml-(raliertruck trips. Currently, neither <br />of these streets are expnsed to either light/medium truck trips or combination/ <br />semi -trailer truck trips and the adverse environmental Impacts of such truck <br />traffic. <br />4) The Comprehenslye Plan (ref: page 92) notes: "Ex Isling residential streets $hatI <br />be protected from r cc less If Ica[ Ion to more Intense use." <br />a) The Developer proposes (a change the classification of OuIncyStreet from <br />residential to collector status. <br />b)Al a City Council meetingon Or ebnr 20,1906. it vies established In discussion <br />with residents who live along Oulncy Street that this street Is already carrying <br />lcxi much vehicular traffic for safety, considering the Plne+vood Elementary <br />School Is located on the Southeast corner of the Inlerseclimn of 0ulney Street <br />and County Road I, and the number of school children either crossing or walking <br />along this street la get to and from school. <br />5) Under Commercial Opals andPollcles (Goal 2: policies dh e) and Industrial Goals <br />and Policies (Goal 2: poilcv b) and elsewhere, the Comprehensive Plan calls for <br />adequate screeningand buffering of adjacent residential areas from the adverse <br />environmental effects of commercial and Industrial uses. <br />a) The proposed development Is only providing the minimum setback from the <br />residential area to the Worth (County Road 11-2) as required by the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />b) The developer Is providing some landscaping and bermino up to 60" high, <br />which Is more for the benefit of the project than any adequate screening and <br />buffer Ing for the residential neighborhood..' <br />c) An effective screen and buffer could be a landscaped earthen berm of a minimum <br />height of 10'0" up to 20'0" averaging 10'0" In height along County Road H-2. <br />6) Finally, the Comprehensive Plan suggests "Industrial uses In this area should be <br />limited to a less Intense nature to Insure compatibility with surrounding commercial <br />and residential uses. <br />a) Tha proposed area of development could easily lake a different, less Intense <br />form of development thrin proposed by this developer. <br />b) The specific development under conslderallon could be scaled down to a less <br />Intense form for better compatibility to the commercial and residential <br />areas adjacent to the development. <br />We ask, that the EIS for this development specifically address the question "is the proposed <br />protect Inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use plan or any other adopted <br />plans?" Clearly, as shown above, the proposed project Is Inconsistent with Mounds view's <br />Comprehensive Plan. This quesllon should beanswer9d In the final EIS for the project. <br />Further, we speclflcally request that the EIS Investigate the following alternative proposals to <br />millo3te the adverse environmental effects Introduced to the adjacent residential area to the <br />Ilor lh of the development. <br />A) Study and compare the environmental Impacts of a development proposal that <br />Is conslstrnt with Mounds view's Comprehensive Plan; e.g. Ho access points <br />nllmvalloCnnnlyRaMH-7.nndminlm.im 10'0"high lnndsrapedhormsprovided <br />along the South shin of County Road 11-2 to ad quately screen and buffer the <br />r^.sidontlal area to the north. <br />