My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_860409
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_860409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:42 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/9/1986
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />April 9, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Maschka asked when the proposed tennis courts were going to be <br />constructed. Ericksen replied that they are not an urgent part <br />of the overall development package, and $75,000 needs to be <br />raised before they are constructed. <br /> <br />Wiski asked to confirm whether the P.U.D. does address all of the <br />parking demand pursuant to all of the proposed facilities. Johnson <br />replied yes it does, and that if any of the dotted portion depicted <br />on the proposed P.U.D. were to be considered, a modified P.U.D. <br />would have to be requested from the City. <br /> <br />Wi ski asked how the additional parking was divided between the <br />two cities. Johnson replied approximately 304 in Roseville and <br />roughly 250 in Arden Hills. <br /> <br />Wiski asked as to whether parking could take place in some of the <br />ball fields during major events. Johnson replied that it is a <br />possibility for football games, etc. Additional areas of potential <br />parking have been identifed if the proposed parking is not adequate. <br />Wiski asked Ericksen as to whether he was willing to accept this <br />as a condition of the approval. He replied that he was. <br /> <br />Maschka asked if ponding in the area was adequate in light of the <br />new asphalt. Mr. Davidson replied that yes, it was adequate for <br />the proposed development. <br /> <br />Ms. Johnson stated her concern that most of the building will <br />occur in Roseville. Mr. Johnson replied that they are making a <br />major effort to properly landscape the area, and enhance the <br />overall environment. Ms. Johnson again reiterated her concern that <br />the area will be primarily blacktop on the Roseville side of the <br />development, and that landscaping is critical to the project. <br />Mr. Gray, Landscape Architect, proceeded to discuss the specific <br />elements of the landscape plan. Dr. Ericksen stated that the <br />College plants from fifty to seventy-five trees per year. <br /> <br />Mr. Goedeke asked what areas are going to be lighted. Mr. <br />Davidson replied that lighting is addressed in the proposed plans <br />that were submitted. Shielded lights will be used on all paths, <br />and they are not going to light the tennis courts, the athletic <br />fields, or the pathway on the eastern side of the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Moeller asked where the mechanical systems on the dorm were <br />located, and where exhaust will be directed. Mr. Davidson <br />replied the exhaust will be directed "upward" and not towards the <br />residential area. <br /> <br />Dave Carlson, 1516 Edgewater, asked that if this is a new plan, <br />shouldn't the new plan be approved in its entirety? Wiski <br />replied that yes, it is a new plan, and that's what is currently <br />being processed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.