My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_940810
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1994
>
pm_940810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:34:20 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:55:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/10/1994
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.
/
20
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 />Commission may wish to review such materials. He stated that the site plan and scale of <br />the project is more in keeping with the site than previous proposals, but was concerned <br />with parking and building materials. <br /> <br />Member Sandstrom asked for information regarding the pond level in relation to the <br />basement floor. The architect responded the pond level was 2 feet below the basement <br />floor. Member Sandstrom asked for clarification regarding the screening ITom the parking <br />lot and the building. The architect responded there would be small shrubbery elements <br />adjacent to the building and near the parking area. <br /> <br />Member Thomas asked if overflow parking would use parking lots. The architect <br />responded affirmatively. Chairman Wietecki asked if the pond needed to be fenced. The <br />staff responded there is no requirement to fence a private pond. Chairman Wietecki asked <br />if all the apartment parking was on the site or whether only guest parking was on the site. <br />The staff clarified that at least 20 new spaces will be created in the church parking lot as <br />well as providing on-site parking. <br /> <br />Member Roberts asked for clarification regarding snow removal and signage in the area. <br />The Commission discussed whether lighted signs were important to a senior project. <br /> <br />Chairman Keith Wietecki asked for comments ITom the public. <br /> <br />Ed Cunningham, 1857 Eldridge Avenue, asked if the project was a tax increment financing <br />project. No answer was available at this time. <br /> <br />A resident, 1841 Eldridge Avenue, asked if the senior citizen pedestrian crossings at <br />Larpenteur and County Road B could have an expanded time on the semaphore. <br />Chairman Wietecki asked the staff to contact Ramsey County regarding the timing of the <br />semaphores. <br /> <br />The citizens asked whether the building would be accessible to Fairview Avenue without <br />extreme slopes or steps. The architect responded the building is being designed with <br />accessibility and the ADA requirements in mind. <br /> <br />Ed Cunningham, 1857 Eldridge Avenue, expressed his opposition to the proposal in the <br />following list: <br /> <br />1. It is an incompatible land use with the single family neighborhood to the south. <br />2. It has inadequate buffering. <br />3. Increased traffic congestion. <br />4. No county plans to widen Fairview ofB. <br />5. Noise pollution of the HV AC, traffic, trashmaster dumpings. <br />6. Concern about lighting in the parking lots. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.