pm_930210 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 1992 Paget 4 Shardlow summarized neighborhood involvement process and proposed plans, comprehensive plan, zoning, what could be done under existing zoning, ditch, and road configuration. Paul Sentman, College Properties, Inc., discussed the goals of Northwestern College and the nature of the project. Peter Pfister, project architect, summarized the proposal. Discussion Issues discussed included definition of independent living, potential benefits to the college, the relationship between Northwestern College and College Properties, Inc., security issues, existing flooding problems, landscaping, buffering, the need for more detailed traffic study, whether or not there should be trails adjacent to the ditch, neighborhood reaction at the neighborhood meetings, and future use of the site for college purposes. 2 citizens appeared. Hank Wells, 1651 Millwood Avenue, stated he wasn't opposed to Northwestern College but had some specific concerns which needed to be addressed. Mr. Wells pointed out that there was inadequate baseline data on the ditch and pond, and that engineering studies on drainage are incomplete. Mr. Wells testified that the trees should be preserved and incrementally supplemented, that he had concerns about recreational use of the ditch, that wildlife habitat should be protected and that the motel should be located on the north end of the site. Tim Callahan, 3062 Shorewood Lane, pointed out his concerns about additional stormwater runoff from the site because the existing ditch is not handling existing runoff. Mr. Callahan stated the proposed 6 to 8 story building would be out of scale with the neighborhood, that the proposed density is too high and that traffic estimates may be too low. Mr. Callahan expressed concern about ditch maintenance because of problems present on the Northwestern College site. It was the consensus of the Commission that items which should be addressed in the general concept PUD plan submittal included more detailed traffic projections, drainage issues, size of buildings and how they appear to the neighborhood, a comparison of the proposed buildings to existing buildings in the community, sight distance studies on the curb cuts on the new road, parking analysis, engineering and ditch design issues, and the location of structures on the site. MOTION None.