PCP 07-06-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 13 Jim Clark, 4528 Keithson Drive, expressed concern about the traffic. He asked them to . take into consideration the winter months and the blind spot on the road. He believed there would be an increase in traffic accidents in the area with this development. He stated he liked the nice, low profile of the buildings on the north side of Highway 96 off of Hamline and suggested they have low profile buildings in this development also. He noted in the future he believed Hamline would be generating considerable more traffic once the TCAAP area was developed. He also expressed concern about his property value decreasing. He believed the development would look better and fit in better where the shopping center was located up on Highway 96, Jan Cather Weaver, 1435 Arden View Drive, stated she would also like a berm as previously suggested. She expressed concern regarding the landscaping on the front side of Highway 96. She asked how the buildings would be landscaped so they did not look like a shopping mall or rental units with all of the asphalt. She expressed concern about the wildlife and requested that the wildlife not be disrupted with this development. She asked who would manage any vacated unit. She believed there was a lack of interest in this type of a development in the City. She asked if the traffic study had taken into consideration the increase of traffic in the next five to ten years. She expressed concern that Arden View Court would be used as a "U" turn. She stated she bought her home because it was a quiet neighborhood and expressed concern about the human ecology of Arden View Drive and Arden Hills. Mike Black stated with respect to traffic, they had a report from a professional engineer . trained in traffic and there was a very detailed report done for this area. He stated based on this zoning, land use and development, the traffic being generated from this project would not have a significant impact to the traffic. He indicated during high traffic times, people would seek the easiest way in and out so there might be an occasional "U" turn. He stated this was no different than anywhere somebody went. He suggested the City have their engineer review the report. He noted the study had also been reviewed by the Ramsey County Engineer, who had also agreed that this was an appropriate traffic generated use for this location. He understood the frustrations the residents had with the traffic, but those conditions were there today and providing a second way of ingress and egress was a must to make this development a viable project. He stated it was better to provide for disbursement of traffic rather than having one access point and he did not believe they could get the County's permission to cut an access into Highway 96. He noted with the berm, they would need a minimum of 70 feet, which was not possible unless the residents wanted part of the berm on their property, He indicated they could look at a slight berm, but he was not sure it would work and there was a concern with proper drainage also. He suggested they walk along the buffer are and add more land~caping if needed. He stated landscaping was not an issue and if they wanted additional landscaping, they were willing to do that. He did not believe they would negatively impact property values and in fact, believed the property values would rise. He noted this was a high end, quality office development and the value of this development would increase the property values in the area. He stated they were willing . to discuss with staff with restricting retail and restaurants and it was their intention of having this strictly an office complex. With respect to the walkway along the westerly edge, they would look at that area and attempt to provide some curves in that walkway with additional landscaping, noting they were limited in space. With respect to the dumpster location, all of the dumpsters would be bricked and roofed with a wood gated ---.-----