My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCP 07-06-2005
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004-2009
>
PC Packets 2005
>
PCP 07-06-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:24 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:58:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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 PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 12 <br /> . Homeowners: Conceals partial view of development and Highway 96; tempers the <br /> sounds from parking lot and Highway 96; provides consistent landscaping with existing <br /> townhouse berms; reduces some loss of property values; prevents nuisance headlight <br /> glare from parking lot and south drive. She noted "good berms make good neighbors". <br /> Mike Giel, 4534 Keithson Drive, stated he had lived in his home for 15 years and he was <br /> not opposed to an acceptable development of this area, but expressed concern for the <br /> safety with respect to traffic for the residents on Keithson Drive and the townhomes. He <br /> expressed concern about having two "U" turns in this area. He noted this was not only <br /> dangerous, but it was a major imposition for the people coming out of Keithson Drive. <br /> He indicated he did not accept the traffic report because that engineer did not "live with <br /> this traffic experience", He stated this was a major safety concern and he did not <br /> understand why the County would accept a "U" turn on Hamline and then another "U" <br /> turn up the road. He noted Mounds View High School used this area as a major <br /> thoroughfare to getting to school. He stated he wanted a cut-through in the island so a <br /> "U" turn was not necessary. He also suggested they turn the buildings 26-30 to face the <br /> parking lot and eliminate the road onto Hamline. He stated it was the people who made <br /> Arden Hills and it was the people who had to stay in the City, not the businesses. <br /> John Lawyer, 4539 Keithson Drive, stated he had lived in his home since 1977, He <br /> indicated he did not oppose the development, but would like to see it better insulated <br /> from the neighborhood so it did not disturb the quality of neighborhood life. He <br /> . expressed concern about the pedestrian trail to the west of the property and that it not take <br /> the appearance of an alley way. He indicated they used the trail at least twice a day. He <br /> expressed concern about the fenced in trash dumpster and the brick wall of the <br /> westernmost units of the development, which was 10 feet from the edge of the foot trail. <br /> He suggested a berm along the western side. He requested the trash dumpster be located <br /> somewhere other than the western edge of the property. He expressed concern about the <br /> possibility of retail space in this development. He suggested they consider eliminating <br /> the possibility of retail space in this development. <br /> Cindy Owen, 4490 Hamline Avenue North, stated she lived one block south of Highway <br /> 96 and had lived in her home for seven years. She stated she had a teenage son who was <br /> going to Mounds View High School next year. She expressed concern about the traffic <br /> on the road and the noise that was generated by the traffic. She expressed concern about <br /> the safety of the kids that were waiting at the bus stops. She also expressed concern <br /> about the speed the County Sheriff uses on Hamline Avenue. <br /> James Pinckney, 1425 Arden View Drive, stated there appeared to be four areas of non- <br /> compliance in this development, and he did not see any variances from the developer. He <br /> asked for justification from the developer as to these non-compliances. He asked if the <br /> developer had looked at all of the possibilities for landscaping. He expressed concern <br /> about the traffic study and the potential future and existing traffic problems. He stated <br /> traffic from the TCAAP project was just starting to build and he believed Guidant was <br /> . less than half way into their expansion and hiring for a significant expansion of their <br /> facility. He believed the traffic study was flawed and it appeared to him that there were <br /> big issues related to this. He asked if a modification to Highway 96 was a possibility to <br /> allow better access, He acknowledged there will be an increase in traffic in the City in <br /> the next five years, but he was concerned they were not addressing two major projects <br /> that added to the traffic right now (TCAAP and Guidant). <br /> ---------- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.