PCP 07-06-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission . City of Arden Hills City Council June 29, 2005 Page 2 The first major opposition was the traffic, such as the access road to Hamline Avenue, proposed u-turns on Highway 96, and increased traffic in a currently congested area. Typical comments from the signers of the petition were: "The City Council can not be serious about approving an access road to Hamline A venue;" "U-turns shouldn't be legal on Highway 96;" and "How many more accidents do we need on Hamline Avenue before the City Council will realize our problems and now they want to add more traffic!" The second major opposition was the use of more property for neighborhood business development, particularly in light of the current business development of Guidant and the future business development in TCMP. Typical comments included: "Can't we leave the south side of Highway 96 for residential development and the north s~de for business and governmental developments?" "Too much asphalt;" "Because of the poor traffic i access, no business development should be put in that property;" and "Don't we have I enough business offices in Arden Hills already?" The third major opposition was the impact on the environment and quality oflife in . Arden Hills. Typical comments included: "1 moved to Arden Hills for the trees and now they are going to cut them down;" "Whoever did the traffic study doesn't live here during rush hour;" and "I'm tired of the City of Arden Hills always trying to make a quick buck but not thinking about us taxpayers. What's in it for us?" I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to take these concerns under advisement when voting on Planning Case 05-12. Sincerely, {l4/v!~ Gale E. Van Buskirk 1390 Arden View Drive enclosure (l) .