My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_041006
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
pm_041006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:36:16 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:04:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/6/2004
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.
/
8
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 />of Big Box at main entry to new neighborhood). <br /> <br />Chair Traynor asked if LEED standards could be used. How does this project compare? Michael Noonan explained <br />his memorandum on meeting many LEED standards. The U.S. Builders Association has adopted LEED standards: <br />lot designs, energy conservation, HVAC equipment standards, water conservation, and home owners/property <br />management education. <br /> <br />--------- Ten Minute Recess -------- <br /> <br />Chair Traynor asked Steve Wilson (City Traffic Consultant) to explain the original Stakeholder concept for a jog or <br />disconnect in the Parkway. The Parkway serves to access internal uses. The disconnect increased traffic on <br />County Road C and D. The connected parkways keep more traffic on the Parkway and out of the existing <br />neighborhoods. Mr. Wilson explained traffic capacity of a round-about. He will review this with Joe Samuel and <br />report on this at the next meeting (October 14, 2004). <br /> <br />Judy Holgen, 1934 Shryer, asked for details of the health limits on contamination. How will the Lake be managed? <br />How will contaminants be cleaned? Dennis Welsch explained the current remedial action plan progress and the <br />review currently being undertaken by MnPCA. Michael Noonan noted contaminants will be addressed with ponding <br />and filtering. Redevelopment will be an assist to clean the Lake waters. <br /> <br />Natasha Walter, 3100 Prior Circle, asked for details of pathways, bike lanes and parkways. Michael Noonan <br />explained vehicle traffic will be distinct from pedestrian. Bike lanes will be constructed and planned with fewer <br />conflicts. <br /> <br />Tim Callahan, 3062 Shoreview Lane, asked if valuation was similar to 2001 plan. Welsch explained the proposal of <br />$212M vs. the original 2001 plan of $300-350M covering the entire site. How can buildings be tall within 300 feet of <br />the Lake? Green spaces are shown also as ponds and parks. Is there a difference here? <br /> <br />Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Lane, asked what the normal setback from a park property line was. (There is no specific <br />regulation separating the buildings from park property line). Thomas Paschke explained setbacks. Staff will prepare <br />setbacks from the park, adjacent to the property line. B-6 and Shoreland regulations may differentiate the <br />measurement. <br /> <br />Tam McGehee expressed concern that the City has no control over PUDs. What control do citizens have? Who <br />can review a PUD? How small a change can be done by staff by comparison to a major amendment? Why does <br />the development not have two story parking ramps for commercial uses? John Johanson explained the economics <br />of parking ramp construction and maintenance. Parking ramps cost $20-$25 per square foot to construct. <br />Underground parking is more affordable with less maintenance. She commented that AUAR comments suggest <br />permeable surfaces and swales instead of storm sewers. Joe Samuel explained surface permeable vs impervious <br />surface water treatment. Can native vegetation be used will be decide as the plans become more specific. <br /> <br />Warren Davidson, 2839 Asbury St., asked what the price range of housing would be. Michael Noonan explained <br />that for the financial models, average prices will be lower $200,000 to lower $300,000. Mr. Davidson asked for <br />details of Phase 2 and Phase 3. <br /> <br />Chair Traynor asked if a portion of the site might be reserved for affordable housing. If possible (with grants) units <br />could be reserved. <br /> <br />Member Pust asked about housing/demographic impacts on school districts. Member Doherty asked if there is <br />housing for young singles (no). There will not be many children in this development. Chair Traynor described the <br />senior housing marketing and linkage in Roseville. <br /> <br />Member Doherty asked ifthere is a market saturation in senior housing. Michael Noonan explained the strong <br />appetite for senior housing because of the baby boomers. Member Pust asked what will happen to the housing <br />after the baby boomers are gone. Housing is an asset which may refresh or be renovated to another type of <br />housing at that time. <br /> <br />Judy Honen, 1809 Stanbridge Avenue, explained Fairview traffic back-ups. What is Roseville doing to reduce <br />impacts of growth and traffic? Steve Wilsen explained that there will be additional traffic on Fairview, regardless of <br />what is done by the year 2020. <br />Background traffic continues to grow without new development in the nearby area. <br /> <br />Judy Honen asked what the peak and off-peak traffic might be for different uses throughout the 24 hour period. <br />Peak traffic is 10% average but more in office areas, less in retail. A mix of uses spreads the peaks. Steve Wilson <br />will bring back peaks by uses. <br /> <br />Hank Wells, 1615 Millwood, expressed concern about visual pollution. The Park has best views looking from north <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.