My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-13-15-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
07-13-15-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2015 11:45:16 AM
Creation date
7/10/2015 11:29:06 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
394
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 WORK SESSION – JUNE 15, 2015 5 <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that that the County has discussed a <br />land swap to address the pinch point. She was uncertain if the land swap had occurred. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes agreed that this issue should be addressed. She asked if TCAAP would <br />have one or two entrances from County Road I. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Maurer commented that the County was proposing one entrance at this <br />time. There may be a second entrance for a trailhead, but noted that this was being handled by the <br />County and would not connect to TCAAP (Creek Neighborhood). <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes suggested changing the word “higher” to “better” in the first paragraph <br />on page 11-10 and changing the word “local” to “internal” in the last paragraph on page 11-11. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes asked if the A-line BRT route would be extended or if the existing park <br />and ride would be increased in size. She discussed Section 11.3.4 further and noted that she was <br />in favor of removing the first red-lined sentence on page 11-13 from the paragraph. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that initial findings have been <br />reviewed by staff and the extended BRT line was being considered by the Metropolitan Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant had the same understanding that the route was being considered. It was his hope <br />that the BRT route would be extended as it would work well in this community. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding bus routes and mass transit issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Lamb recommended that the sentences remain in Section 11.3.4 as this would allow TCAAP <br />to be developed in order to be transit-ready. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung recommended that “with bus shelters” be removed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden suggested a terminology change to “transit supportive”. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant was in favor of this reading “transit ready”. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden recommended that the City’s vision be considered and reflected within <br />the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes believed that the City’s goal for future land use was discussed in <br />Chapter 6 in Attachment D. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked if the County has clearly defined what “good paying jobs” means. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik explained that the Comprehensive Plan should not include specific <br />metrics, but rather should be aspirational goals. He advised that the more flexible the language, <br />the better off the City would be. <br /> <br />The Council further discussed the City’s goals and objectives for TCAAP.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.