pm_860409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1986 Page 2 Maschka also asked about the exit on the southwest part of the proposal, and wouldn't that have a negative effect in terms of shining lights on neighbors homes. Mr. Dahlgren discussed the rationale behind the modified traffic flow, and stated that there will no longer be any parking in the streets within the College as a result of this modification. Ericksen also stated that he could leave the Western exit as it currently is, if the Planning Commission would agree to it. Maschka asked how the athletic facility would be used. Dr. Ericksen replied it could be used for other events, but they would prefer to use the existing Fine Arts building in most instances. Wiski asked what the differences were between the dotted buildings as opposed to the darkened buildings on the proposed site plan. Dr. Ericksen explained that the dotted dormitory depicted on the plan was considered as an expansion area. Mr. Dahlgren clarified the point that the dotted dormitory on the plan is not being approved by the Planning Commission, and that the parking area is not available for that particular develop- ment. John Davidson, TKDA, (architect) discussed the proposal and how the access was going to be modified to enhance the P.U.D. Mr. Wiski asked with respect to fire prevention purposes, how many students were going to be in each dorm, two or three? Ericksen replied that in terms of their proposed enrollment, there would be two students to each room. Goedeke asked whether the sewer main is adequate for the project. Davidson replied, yes, the capacity does exist. DeBenedet asked whether the proposed parking was based on two or four students per room. Jim Johnson, parking consultant of the study, stated that the parking is based on the assumption that seventy-five percent of the students are on campus, and that fifty percent of them have cars. DeBenedet again asked is the 1,250 maximum number of students based on the dormitory maximum? Johnson replied that the number is based on what the College feels it can accommodate in terms of total student population. Davidson also pointed out that the parking includes the capacity for a 2,000 person demand period relating to the sports facility. Wiski asked that the architects summarize the parking proposal. Johnson explained how the basic parking demand was analyzed and where the parking was going to occur on campus, which is essentially in the central area. Dr. Ericksen emphasized that the schedule is oriented towards completion of the athletic facilities.