|
<br />CITY CENTER TASK FORCE NOTES
<br />November 19, 1998
<br />
<br />1. Call to Order: November 19,1998,6:30 p.m.
<br />
<br />2. Present: Chair Keith Wietecki, Patricia Johnson, Peggy Egli, Donald Anderson,
<br />Richard Bates, Perrie Heitfer, Thomas Johnson, Joseph Smith, Scott
<br />Bergs, Ann Hermes, Jan Vanderwall
<br />
<br />Council presentBarb Mastell
<br />
<br />Others present Kim Way, Dennis Welsch, Mike Palermo, Bob Bierscheid, Chief Paul
<br />Wood, Chief Dick Forletti
<br />
<br />3. Chair Keith Wietecki reviewed past activities from Task Force meetings and the
<br />November 7th City Tour. He asked that the Task Force consider a definition of
<br />.community center". Patricia Johnson noted the difference between .community center"
<br />(building) vs, .city center" (place). It is an area or place in the community, not a building.
<br />The charge is to pull Roseville together - put components together that people of the
<br />community agree should be placed together. An "activity center" is a group of activities at
<br />a location. A community center is not the geographic center of the community.
<br />
<br />4. Kim Way asked for likes and dislikes of the community center tour,
<br />
<br />a. Brooklyn Park. All civic campus (a site); nationals guard armory, no sidewalks,
<br />pedestrian pathways, add-on buildings, busy, little planning, a number of
<br />activities, senior center, recreation center, activity rooms, skate center, not
<br />aesthetically pleasing - dark, long hallways, library, city maintenance garage. No
<br />sense of entry or door; federal, state, county, city, school district, tank display out
<br />front; shooting center.
<br />
<br />b. Maple Grove. Hard to tell jf this was going to work today, but will take 20 years
<br />to complete; former gravel pit site that was being redeveloped by developer. City
<br />takes "back seat" to master plan; created partnerships with builders/retailers.
<br />Partnership could be used in Roseville, just differently; nice meeting spaces,
<br />good indoor/outdoor connection to lake; teen and senior center heavily used with
<br />a theatre; nice walk-through pattern; lots of good space; revenue from parties;
<br />feeling of spaciousness; scattered group seating; space was gracious and sunny.
<br />
<br />c. Plymouth. Where was city hall? Was the community building the city center;
<br />parking problems; senior building not on site and not well planned; city, school
<br />Life-Time partnership; no small child admittance; need to take advantage of
<br />shared parking; be careful of public/private partnerships - get even treatment;
<br />seniors wanted separated site from activity, retail (Cub), movie theatre, fast food
<br />in area; located near major thoroughfares; private development activity wants
<br />traffic and visibility.
<br />
<br />d. Minnetonka. Civic center only; seniors and city hal1 together; hockey and
<br />"Marsh" fitness site; no walking access to neighborhood; isolated; water and
<br />decking were beautiful; dog training facility; site isolation.
<br />
<br />e. Chaska. Has traditional city center-and a community center adjacent to schools
<br />, - not near downtown; must drive to the facility; no community around it;
<br />continuous add-on facility. Poor parking; On a mid-Saturday it was hardly used.
<br />Theatre-auditorium art display center. Trying to build adjacent to neighborhood.
<br />
<br />Page 1 of 6
<br />
|