My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
10-27-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2014 2:21:18 PM
Creation date
12/11/2014 2:21:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—OCTOBER 27, 2014 18 <br /> Councilmember Holmes expressed concern regarding the speed bumps. She did not believe any <br /> speed bumps should be required on the County Road D driveway. For this reason, she believed <br /> that the staff recommended amendment regarding the speed bumps should remain in place. <br /> Councilmember McClung recommended that action on that amendment be taken separate from <br /> the motion currently on the table. <br /> City Attorney Jamnik advised the Council to take action on the speed bump amendment at this <br /> time as an amendment to the original motion. <br /> AMENDMENT: Motion by Councilmember Holmes and seconded by Councilmember <br /> Holden to add for approval, the following component to the proposed <br /> PUD amendment as condition 20: <br /> • Amend the conditions in the PUD Agreement to allow for the <br /> removal of the required one or more speed bumps on the <br /> County Road D driveway if the traffic study to be completed <br /> one year following the completion of the redevelopment proiect <br /> supports such removal of one or more speed bumps. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked how the City would gauge whether or not a traffic study was <br /> completed. <br /> Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the approved PUD agreement states that the City would <br /> perform a traffic count one year after completion of the project. He stated that his understanding <br /> was that the City would be responsible for hiring a traffic engineer to complete the traffic study <br /> and an escrow account would be established by the applicant to cover the expense of the study. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that he could not support the proposed amendment. He <br /> suggested a friendly amendment requesting the language read: The City Council will revisit the <br /> necessity for traffic calming measures on the County Road D driveway upon the completion of the <br /> traffic study, one year after completion of the project. <br /> FRIENDLY <br /> AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holmes and Councilmember Holden accepted a <br /> friendly amendment to the language for the component to the proposed <br /> PUD amendment to read as follows: <br /> • The City Council will revisit the necessity for traffic calming <br /> measures on the County Road D driveway upon the completion <br /> of the traffic study, one year after completion of the proiect. <br /> Councilmember Holmes wanted to be ensured that the required traffic study addressed the speed <br /> bump removal issue. She supported the proposed language within the friendly amendment. <br /> Associate Planner Bachler read the original PUD language regarding the traffic study. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.