07-11-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . . May 24, 2005 Plan Commission Members City of Arden Hills This relates to Planning Case 05- J 2, the Office Park proposed to be on the former city hall and maintenance facility site, 1440- I 450 Highway 96, and is further to our communication about it dated April 23,2005, based now on the official proposal to come before you on June I rather than on the preliminary one discussed at the neighborhood meeting April J 9. Arden Hills North Homes Association (AHNHA) represents the 140 townhomes situated directly south of and adjacent to the proposed development. Our residents and Board of Directors are not opposed to an office park on the site if it is consistent in both letter and spirit with the applicable NB zoning. However, we contitule to have serious reservations about the proposal, notwithstanding minor modifications of, and the provision of additional details beyond those in, the preliminary proposal. Accordingly, we are listing those reservations at this time based on the revised proposal as we now know it, and will augment them orally at the hearing on June I. In addition, many of our 140 resident families may wish to conunent independently in writing or vernally at the hearing, along with others residing on Arden View Court (Townhouse Villages of Arden Hills Association) and on Keithson Drive, as well as the management of Children's World. Access. 1) Of the two accesses to the subject property, the one offHamline Avenue is of the most concern. Traffic entering or leaving from or to tbe north and entering from the south must cross two lanes of traffic already congested at times. Congestion is due to increase anyway over the next several years because of a major increase in employment at Guidant, with even more in future years due to development of the TCAAP property. Exiting to the south even now frequently requires breaking into a solid line of traffic. We already experience this a short distance further south at Arden View Drive, but the difficulty would be exacerbated by proximity to the Highway % intersection. 2) We have read the traffic study and note the tentative nature of its conclusions, including its reconunendation that 50-foot radius turns be provided on both sides of the entrance onto Hamline which are not shown on the plat, and for which there may not be room, even if an existing utility pole can be moved. 3) The easement from Hamline Avenue is on a hillside. Locating a driveway on it will necessitate grading and retaining walls above and below it, not shown on the plat. How about drainage, and protection of residents (including children) from falling? We see no detail in the plat that answers to this. 4) The apparent main entrance to the property directly off Highway 96 is available only eastbound, necessitating westbound traffic to U-turn at the Keithson Drive intersection. The traffic study was equivocal about this, stating "it is believed that the U-turn can be made safely," and that "County staff will ban U-turns at the intersection if a problem arises." Drainage. 5) With several acres now in grass or bush to be covered by impervious buildings and parking or driveway surfaces, we request professional confirmation of exactly which elements of the property constitute the claimed "40.3% open space" The amount of true green space seems extremely limited except in two spots, but could be increased if the number of units were to be decreased to, say, 24 rather than 30. Proximity, 6) The whole project is immediately adjacent to a residential area, especially the two 5- unit buildings along the south border (Lots 4-8 and J 5-19). The setback there has been increased