My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-05
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
07-11-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2012 10:46:46 AM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:22:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
297
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />May 24, 2005 <br /> <br />Plan Commission Members <br />City of Arden Hills <br /> <br />This relates to Planning Case 05- J 2, the Office Park proposed to be on the former city hall <br />and maintenance facility site, 1440- I 450 Highway 96, and is further to our communication about <br />it dated April 23,2005, based now on the official proposal to come before you on June I rather <br />than on the preliminary one discussed at the neighborhood meeting April J 9. <br /> <br />Arden Hills North Homes Association (AHNHA) represents the 140 townhomes situated <br />directly south of and adjacent to the proposed development. Our residents and Board of Directors <br />are not opposed to an office park on the site if it is consistent in both letter and spirit with the <br />applicable NB zoning. However, we contitule to have serious reservations about the proposal, <br />notwithstanding minor modifications of, and the provision of additional details beyond those in, <br />the preliminary proposal. <br /> <br />Accordingly, we are listing those reservations at this time based on the revised proposal as <br />we now know it, and will augment them orally at the hearing on June I. In addition, many of our <br />140 resident families may wish to conunent independently in writing or vernally at the hearing, <br />along with others residing on Arden View Court (Townhouse Villages of Arden Hills <br />Association) and on Keithson Drive, as well as the management of Children's World. <br /> <br />Access. <br />1) Of the two accesses to the subject property, the one offHamline Avenue is of the most <br />concern. Traffic entering or leaving from or to tbe north and entering from the south must cross <br />two lanes of traffic already congested at times. Congestion is due to increase anyway over the <br />next several years because of a major increase in employment at Guidant, with even more in <br />future years due to development of the TCAAP property. Exiting to the south even now <br />frequently requires breaking into a solid line of traffic. We already experience this a short distance <br />further south at Arden View Drive, but the difficulty would be exacerbated by proximity to the <br />Highway % intersection. <br />2) We have read the traffic study and note the tentative nature of its conclusions, including <br />its reconunendation that 50-foot radius turns be provided on both sides of the entrance onto <br />Hamline which are not shown on the plat, and for which there may not be room, even if an <br />existing utility pole can be moved. <br />3) The easement from Hamline Avenue is on a hillside. Locating a driveway on it will <br />necessitate grading and retaining walls above and below it, not shown on the plat. How about <br />drainage, and protection of residents (including children) from falling? We see no detail in the plat <br />that answers to this. <br />4) The apparent main entrance to the property directly off Highway 96 is available only <br />eastbound, necessitating westbound traffic to U-turn at the Keithson Drive intersection. The <br />traffic study was equivocal about this, stating "it is believed that the U-turn can be made safely," <br />and that "County staff will ban U-turns at the intersection if a problem arises." <br /> <br />Drainage. <br />5) With several acres now in grass or bush to be covered by impervious buildings and <br />parking or driveway surfaces, we request professional confirmation of exactly which elements of <br />the property constitute the claimed "40.3% open space" The amount of true green space seems <br />extremely limited except in two spots, but could be increased if the number of units were to be <br />decreased to, say, 24 rather than 30. <br /> <br />Proximity, <br />6) The whole project is immediately adjacent to a residential area, especially the two 5- <br />unit buildings along the south border (Lots 4-8 and J 5-19). The setback there has been increased <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.