My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_860507
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
198x
>
1986
>
pm_860507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:32:44 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:37:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/7/1986
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.
/
15
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 />May 7, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Judd Zandstra, 3208 Shorewood Lane, was concerned about the lake <br />quality, and asked how much of the Health and Fitness <br />Building would be visible. Architect Johnson replied the Health <br />and Fitness Building will be less visible than the other <br />buildings, and will be screened through extensive landscaping. <br />In terms of lake quality, Architect Johnson discussed the fact <br />that the proposal had to go through the Rice Creek Watershed. In <br />addition, the City Engineering staff has requested a number of <br />modifications to enhance the quality of the lake water. <br /> <br />Roberta Thompson, 1686 West Lydia, asked again for discussion and <br />modifications relating to vegetation. Architect Johnson proceeded <br />to discuss the modifications. <br /> <br />Loren Bentz, 3076 Asbury Street, stated that he was worried about <br />the environmental ramifications, and wanted the Health and Fitness <br />Building lowered, and appropriate parking modifications away from <br />the residents to take place. <br /> <br />Discussion then ensued regarding underground parking, and the <br />purpose and need for it. Dahlgren replied that underground parking <br />is encouraged, and that it allows the existing landscaping to <br />exist and negates the need for a "sea of asphalt". He also <br />pointed out that without the underground parking, the building <br />units would not necessarily be lower. <br /> <br />Steinworth asked whether the College would commit to how much <br />landscaping is removed for the building development. Architect <br />Johnson replied yes, the approved landscape plan will have to look <br />at this issue. <br /> <br />Phillips asked whether the building is too close to the water, <br />and also it is too much mass for the area. It should be scaled <br />down. Ericksen replied that the building had already been scaled <br />down by twenty percent. <br /> <br />Lethert stated that he was interested in learning whether the <br />College is leaning towards athletics or academics. Ericksen <br />replied that the College simply needs more athletic facilities, <br />and they currently have the facilities of a small elementary <br />school. Wiski stated it was not within the parameters of the <br />Planning Commission to discuss where the College is going in <br />terms of academics, philosophy, etc. <br /> <br />Churchward asked what the events were that would be scheduled in <br />this building. Ericksen replied they are basically concerts, <br />musicals, and conferences. <br /> <br />Unnamed resident again asked the question of elevations and how <br />the final buildings were reviewed. Wiski explained the building <br />permit process to the resident. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.