11-02-1988 PTRC Agenda-Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, November 2, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-32 (Cont'd) The Planner recommended monitoring traffic closely at the Highway 96 and I-35W interchange; he advised the Traffic Engineer at SEH would be monitoring that intersection. • Chairman Curtis asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard in favor of or opposed to this matter. There was no response. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. Commission comments were as follows: -Member Malone reported the Council had been polled at their Regular Meeting of October 24, 1988 and it appeared the majority of Councilmembers favored the five-step plan/guidelines for development of this Study Area as outlined by Commission. -Member Martin referred to the "Pathway Trail" shown on the circulation plan diagram included in the packet and questioned if it is shown on the existing Comprehensive Plan. He noted the trail dissects the "Business Campus" area. Planner Bergly advised the lines are diagrammatic only and indicate the intent for pedestrian flow through the site; determination of location for trail could be made at a later date. Bergly advised an access to the lake in the southeast corner of the diagram is shown on the existing Comprehensive Plan; recent discussions with appropriate staff have indicated that may not be appropriate at this time. -Member Martin was of the opinion it would be better not to designate the area at the southwest corner of the lake for high density residential; he stated it may be more beneficial not to "tie down" that area. • -Chairman Curtis questioned if the parkland shown on the diagram is the existing amount of parkland or if it includes the proposed parkland after development of the area. Bergly stated the parkland shown is approximately the size of the parkland as it is on the existing Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the area as it relates to wet versus dry land. He advised the Land Study report discusses preservation of the parkland areas. -Member Meury questioned the medium/high density area designated at the southeast corner of the lake. Bergly advised that currently the area is shown as medium density residential and when the land to the north was developed for apartments this area was discussed relative to a higher density; the land is currently zoned R-1. He explained this diagram is a guide for the area and R-3 and R-4 developments require submission of a PUD Plan and along with that comes the zoning change. -Member Zehm questioned if the Commission is considering designating Public Open Space around the lake. The Planner advised the designation merely shows ownership by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. George Indykiewicz, 1920 W. Highway 96, advised he owns the property at the intersection of Highway 96 and I-35W; he asked the Planner to explain the • proposed roadway in that area. Planner Bergly advised the proposal shown on this diagram is merely repeating what the existing Comprehensive Plan indicates; the current roadway would be diverted to intersect with Highway 96 approximately 400 to 500 ft. west of its present intersection. He stated the rationale is to move traffic away from the present intersection to provide ease of access onto the roadway; currently it is a difficult movement.