7.3. SR 04-21-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

development was 80+ units or 50+ units ri-iakes little difference. In fact, a smaller development reduces the c-%-,cntual tax base that would be realized. While the period of TIF was discussed to be extreme, that Nvas only one concern raised. The second project is the apartment complex by the train station. ,\fter Duffy canic in either the last time or the time before that, I emailed a long message toJereniv, raising my concerns, (both as a Councilmember and as a resident. I five in Elk lkiver Station. I had asked that my email be distributed to the planning Commission and to the Council. 'rhat(lid not happen. I discussed it with Jeremy after our last meeting (and before the planning Commission meeting) and he indicated he rcnicti-ibercd the ernail but couldn't locate it but that lie would still look for it. I told hirn if he couldn't locate it that he should contact me for a copy (but that it would be better if lie found it because I preferred not to look because of it being the end of tax season). He did not contact tne. I dont know if the memo was provided to the Planning Commission. I do kno,,v it wasn't included in our packet. U'rift,)rtunately, I do not have access to it here. Jeremy, again, if you have that email, please provide it to the Council. But my concerns related primarily to the safety of the proposed area of the apartment building and it's proxin-lit), to the railroad tracks (and the trains, some of which go through at nearly 60 mph) and it's proximity to Twin Lakes Road. The development is placed right at the turn in the road. I drive that stretch of road multiple times a day and the sight lines there are horrible. In fact, corning frorn the north, because to the turn, the sighthne is drawn more naturally to the left. In my van, the area to the right is largely invisible because or my rear view mirror. Tlic people in that development arc largely trapped there between the trait-is and the road. While a tot lot is proposed, that does nothing for children older that tot lot age. '"I'hose children WI 1.1. go to find friends or look for other interesting things to do. That will mean frequenting the train area or trying to cross Twin Lakes 1Zoad to use the park, or to meet: friend,-,. There is no safe place to cross the road. The intersection at the entrance of the Northstar is not controlled and, even if it were,it is too far out of the way for kids to use. ]"hey will attempt the shortest distance across, which is at the turn onTwinlakes Road. As for the intersection, that intersection is already a big problem for traffic during the times from 6:30-8:30 and 4:30-6:30 because of the interaction of the Northstar trains, and the volume of traffic already comini_,into and Icaving the Northstar parking lot and Ilk River Station. The proposed apartment building will greatly exacerbate the problem as much of its traffic will also be corning and going at those same times. Furthermore, that area was planned to be commercial. While the recession has kept development from happening, if we allow Ilow the commercial area to be deceased more and triorc in size, it will cause the entire area to not have enough critical mass for commercial development and will make the entire area unfit for commercial development. Because the proposed apartment will be unsafe, because it will exacerbate the traffic probletris and because it will inipede the entire area for commercial development,it should be denied. Sincerely, Paul Morin City of E'lk River Councilmernber - Ward 4 Sent from my.lPad 2