Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—JULY 30, 2012 2 <br /> through roadway concepts. He noted that a major part of the implementation plan included one- <br /> on-one meetings with individual business/property owners within the District. <br /> Mr. Thomas explained that when it comes to initiating public engagements, the hope is to reach a <br /> consensus, but because that rarely happens, it is more realistic to start looking for trends and <br /> similar comments to determine what the strategy should be. He indicated that the constituents <br /> appreciated the opportunity to have some influence in the process and to be involved. One <br /> commonality in the feedback was that the elements of the district are declining and the vitality of <br /> the district needs to be addressed. There is also concern regarding: the high number of vacancies <br /> in existing buildings,traffic flow, and aesthetics of the visual appeal of the corridor. <br /> Mr. Thomas noted that people want to see improvements, but they are cautious. He said there is <br /> concern regarding whether they will see a return on their investment, and for this reason, he <br /> presented the idea of taking incremental steps so there is a smaller, or lower, risk in doing the <br /> improvements. <br /> Mr. Thomas stated that there is some question regarding the relevance of the 2008 Guide Plan <br /> and whether assumptions are still valid four years later. For example, vacancy rates are higher <br /> today than they were in 2008. Additionally, the overall economic condition has changed and <br /> people are more conservative than they used to be. <br /> Mr. Thomas noted that there are a few questions he would like the Council to consider to better <br /> facilitate future discussion. <br /> • What is the City Council's 20-year vision for the B-2 District? <br /> • Should changes or improvements along County Road E be more in favor of the existing <br /> land use conditions or of the long term vision of the corridor? <br /> • The approach to implementing corridor improvements along County Road E could range <br /> from adhering to a well-defined plan and maintaining more influence on adjacent land <br /> uses, to allowing a completely market-driven development controlled more by adjacent <br /> property owners and having a less regimented plan. Where, within this spectrum, is the <br /> City Council most comfortable? <br /> • How involved should the City be in implementing infrastructure improvements within <br /> private property? <br /> Discussion ensued regarding feedback received during one-on-one conversations between Bolton <br /> & Menk and business/property owners. Mr. Thomas presented three roadway concepts. These <br /> include a five-lane option that propagates what exists today, but with a narrowed left-turn lane, <br /> selective driveway closures, and continued left-turn capability from remaining driveways; a <br /> median-option that employs more strategically located left turn-lanes and right-in, right-out access <br /> at driveways; and a round-about option that includes a new round-about and more complete <br /> medians and no left-turn lanes or left-turn capability from driveways. <br /> The Council indicated their support for Bolton & Menk to continue with the work program for <br /> Phase I. The Council was very interested to hear more results and feedback from the one-on-one <br /> meetings that are being held by Bolton & Menk. It was noted by the Council that given the <br /> current land ownership situation, it was unlikely a new signalized intersection could be developed <br />