CCP 02-26-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 2-12-90 . Page 2 y-,- GB DIST (Cont'd) Bergly advised that the Engineering Firm of SEH had completed d traffic analysis which showed there would be a severe impact on the I-35W/Highway 96 interchange. The Metropolitan Council cannot accept plan amendments that would knowingly create adverse impacts. . 2. That the City also look at the 1988 system statement and determine if comprehensive plan amendments are necessary. Bergly stated staff and a Planning Commission subcommittee are reviewing this item. 3. That the City establish further development limitations and peak trip limitations in the GB District. (Further reducing the floor area ratio was suggested, along with trip reduction methods, such as ride sharing, bus service additions, etc.) Bergly explained the FAR reduction would require a change in the GB District ordinance, and an additional policy in the Planning Study Report could address the trip reduction methods. He noted the FAR currently allowed in the district is .5 and the scenario used for developing the trip generation was .3 FAR. The Planner cited some examples of various FARTs for other projects in the City. He noted a typical development such as the Minnetonka Corporate Center is developed at a .23 FAR, with some 4-story buildings and quite a few one or two story buildings. Bergly suggested a few sites in the Round Leke Area could be reserved for the higher density and the rest of the sites would accommodate lesser density developmen t. . There was discussion relative to development in surrounding communities, such as Mounds View contributing to the traffic concerns and whether or not the Met Council will limit Arden Hills development due to this fact. Bergly recommended he and the City Engineer conduct a traffic analysis for the site. Councilmember Mahowald questioned if the Met Council is being a bit hard on Arden Hills and what the Met Council enforceloent potential would be if the City does not comply. He stated if the City is subject to compliance with restrictions of Met Council it would be appropriate for the City to pursue creative traffic alternatives to make the site more accessible rather than limiting the type of development which will occur on the site. The Planner explained there would be the potential to lose funding from the Met Council; if the City does not receive funding at this time there would be no affect from noncompliance. He state~ that a number of metropolitan communities have rigorously attempted to control traffic and the Met Council has seen this can be accomplished. Bergly also noted that developers may view a site with traffic problems less favorably. He explained the City can accomplish traffic control during peak hours with creative planning; staggered ehifts, van pooling, bus access and ride sharing. He stated the Met Council Hould be satisfied if the City developed a . policy in the report which encourages the developers to discuss these alternatives; agreed with Councilmember Mahowald that these alternatives should be discussed.