08-08-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETlNG MINUTES JULY 11, 2005 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution #05-45: Approval of Roval Oaks Special Use Permit (Old City Hall Site) Mr. HeUegers requested Council consider the approval of Resolution No. 05-45 which would approve a Master and Final Platmed Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Royal Oaks Realty to redevelop the fonller City Hall and Public Works site on Highway 96 and also to eonsider for approval the Planned Unit Development Permit No. 05-12. He noted the Planning Commission at their July 6, 2005 meeting recommended approval (6-1) subject to eighteen conditions as noted in stafrs July 1],2005 report. Councilmember Larson stated he was very concerned about access onto Hamline Avenue. He indieated he had a hard time undcrstanding why this was a necessary part of this project and he would be much more supportive having a second exit and entrance onto Highway 96. Mike B1aek, Royal Oaks Realty, replied one of the issues on Highway 96 was the left turn movement, which restricted the movement in and out of the development. He stated the access to Hamline afforded multiple movements and allowed for disbursement of traffic in and out of the site from all different directions, which was a key point that they needed for this dcvelopment. He noted his traffic engineer was unable to be in attendance at tonight's meeting, but he believed the engineer would say it was better to have multiple access points in and out as opposed to directing traffic to onc spot. He stated it was critical to this development to have this full movement in terms of access. Conncilmember Larson stated he was not so concerned about the traffie from the development entering and existing on Highway 96 because if they needed to make a "u" turn at Hamline, that was a controlled intersection and he believed that was better than having people turning on Hamline Avenue to access the site. He stated if people were exiting the development and the intention was to head southbound on Hamline Avenue, it was a simple matter to turn at the light. He indicated the amount of additional traffic that would be using that intersection did not warrant having an additional access on Hamline Avenue. Mr. Clark indieated one of the statements that the County made was that the westbound traffic on Highway 96 could use a "u" turn to get back onto the site, but the County would reserve judgment as far as the traffic safety with respect to "u" turn and if the City funneled the traffic to make a "u" turn, there was a possibility the County would eliminate "U" turns, which would be detrimental to the development. Councilmember Larson replied "u" turns were not the best of all worlds, but he would like to see them being made on Highway 96 whcre there was room to make them. He also noted this would rcduce impervious surface as well as allow for additional green space between the buildings and the residences on the development.