CCP 07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 7, 1999 ~ W{ i!\ ic 1f u U1. tt'~ ;f U 3 Bethel College is also proposing to install three reflectorized red warning signs mounted on the east side of the gate in order to give advance notice to motorists that the gate is closed. However, a motorist may not see these signs until the vehicle reaches the gate. An alternative to the gate being in the proposed location might be to relocate the service drive further back into the campus and place the gate back closer to the existing location. This alternative would maintain the required 24 feet. Additionally, during normal hours when the gate is open, moving the gate back would allow more room to separate movements at the entrance to the campus. The alternative would also create a better alignment of the service drive giving a greater distance from Highway 51. Ms. Randall advised that staff, in Planning Case 99-10, recommended denial of the construction of the east entrance gate due to the findings in the Circulation section of the staff memo dated July 7,1999. In summary of the proposal, Staff recommended approval of Planning Case 99-10, site plan review for the construction of the west entrance monument and sign, subject to compliance with the lighting standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended denial of Planning Case 99- 10, site plan review for the construction of the east entrance gate due to the findings in the Circulation section of the staff memo dated July 7,1999. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the July 26, 1999, regular meeting of the City Council. Mr. Michael Coopet, 1636 Chatham Road, asked ifthe recommendation for approval of the west gate included the pedestrian crosswalk and future entrance drive which was depicted on the site plan. Ms. Randall stated that the crosswalk and future entrance drive were not a part of this site plan review, or recommendation. Mr. Coopet confirmed that the Planning Case was strictly for the approval of the monument and sign. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Mr. Coopet stated that he lives near the future entrance drive and he and his neighbors are worried about and sensitive to the issue of the future park. He stated that there should be no need for a pedestrian crosswalk or the entrance drive, if there will not be parking in the area. Mr. Coopet asked staff why the crosswalk and future entrance was depicted on the site plan. Ms. Randall explained that it was the future wishes of the applicant to tie these components into the park. At this time, the City is only reviewing the monument and the sign at this location. Mr. Bruce Kunkle, Vice President of Campus Services, Bethel College, stated that the College's concerns with staffs recommended change to the eastern gate was the precipitous drop from the existing road location down to the creek. The area is very steep and it may not be economically feasible to construct a road in this location. As an alternative, Mr. Kunkle suggested that, at existing grade, it might be possible to wrap the corner of the road tighter than currently proposed. This would gain the additional four feet needed to meet the required 24-foot width. Mr. Kunkle noted that Bethel College's Civil Engineer has worked on the proposed design and location of the gates with the Minnesota Departroent of Transportation and the Minnesota Department of Transportation had felt that this alternative would be acceptable.