My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 07-18-2005
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CC 07-18-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:14 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 12:08:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />JULY IS, 2005 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Huot asked if the Purchase Agreement was contingent upon the PUD approvaL Mr. Clark <br />stated if the PUD was not approved, the developer had the right to cancel the Purchase <br />Agreement. <br /> <br />Mso Huot asked if any Councilmember had any personal dealings or business interests with Royal <br />Oaks Realty. The Councilmembers responded they did not. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked for an explanation and summary ofthe traffic study. <br /> <br />Dan Soler, Traffic Engineer Ramsey County Public Works, stated the County tried to <br />determine what kind of trips were likely to be generated from a development and once they <br />determined how much traffic a development would generate, they needed to then look at where <br />the traffic would be coming from. He indicated after that they reviewed the development plan for <br />proper turn lanes, signals, signage, etc. He stated he had worked with staff on this and had <br />contributed to the recommendations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked what was the possibility of putting in a left turn lane on westbound <br />Highway 96. Mr. Soler responded the County did not support this and would not approve of any <br />additional left turn movements on Highway 96. He noted this was a safety issue and not a cost <br />Issue. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mike Spack, Traffic Study Engineer from Traffic Data Inc., explained the process he went <br />through when preparing a traffic study. He noted with the additional driveway, this would give <br />people choices and allow them alternatives to get out. He indicated he was a licensed engineer by <br />the State and he had gone through extensive training in traffic engineering. He stated he had <br />prepared the study, but both the City Engineer and the County Engineer had reviewed his study. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated what Mr. Spick said was accurate and this was one of the tools they used to <br />analyze this project. <br /> <br />Jim Orutt, 1387 Arden View Drive, stated he had purchased his unit a little over three years ago <br />and what he found in Arden Hills was unique. He stated this was a community and the <br />community was very concerned about their quality of life. He noted something would be lost and <br />changed forever if this development was approved. He requested they look at the communities' <br />feelings, in addition to the studies. <br /> <br />Ms. Huot stated she saw many contradictions in the Traffic Study and believed that this project <br />would double the traffic in the future. Mr. Spack responded Ms. Huot was misinterpreting the <br />report. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, thanked the City for their time and review process. He noted <br />there was a neighborhood meeting held in late March and they had tried to address the residents' <br />issues. He indicated the number one issue at the neighborhood meeting was traffic, which they <br />addressed with a traffic study. With respect to the EA W, he understood there was a petition for <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.