PCP 09-06-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HlLLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 DRAFT 13 . In summary, we respectfully request that if you approve the requested Master and final PUD and Preliminary Plat proposal including llamline Avenue access, you do so only after adopting the Starr recommended Conditions 6 and 7 on occupancy and usc, Conditions 24 and 26 on access with Right-in and Right-out only, and Condition 25 on signage amended as we have advocated above." Stanley Harpstead, 1277 Nursery Hill Lane, statcd he was concerned about the traffic conditions on Hamline and the completion of Lexington A venue had not diminished any traffic on Hamline. He believed the major issue was traffic on Hamline and he did not believe this project could support the density being proposed. He noted adding more inlets and outlets was not going to make this any easier. He stated the best solution was to lower the density, which would reduce the traffic. He requested the Commission reject this development and instead look at a development of 40,000 square feet. He stated a better proposal was to split the development so that the eastern part of the parcel was retained for future development and the developer work with the western parcel only. Diane Phillipi, 1442 Arden View Drive, stated she was a 30 year resident. She proposed during construction that all construction vehicles have to use Highway 96 and not Hamline Avenue. Shc noted thc noise factor for the daycare center and the townhomes would be a factor. She bclieved it would be safer and less noisey if they used Highway 96 and not Hamline Avenue as their entrance and exit. . Richard Roessler, 1261 Nursery Hill Lane, stated he agreed with Mr. Harpstead's comments. He asked why they could not convert this development into a residential area. He noted with the expansion of Boston Scientific and the' COlmty development across Highway 96, it had substantially increased the traffic on Hamline Avenue. He stated this was no longer a positive thing. He was not sure the developer had the community in mind when doing this. Hc stated he was a believer in impact statements and recommcnded they look at this and not approve it now, but rather make it more community minded and do it in such a way as to "test the system." He recommended an impact statement be done. Cindy Owen, 4490 Hamline Avenue, stated she had a coneem about the size of the property and traffic flow. She asked if anyone had looked at how many residents were impacted on the cast side of Hamline with respect to access. She noted right now their main congestion was rush hour and if they put in this development, she believed they would have traffic issues all day long. She believed there would be no down time on llamline A venue. She asked if they could look at the development being reduced down to 40,000 square feet. She believed lhe development was too large. She noted Boston Scientific would be adding onto their buildings and the development of TCAAP, would also put additional traffic onto Hamline A venue. She stated there were a lot of questions the residents had and they did not feel they had answers to. . Brian Densmore, 4504 Hamline Avenue North, stated if the Commissioners lived on Hamline Avenue they would feel the same way about this development as the residents -- DRAFT --