pm_070207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 07, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Thompson provided additional details of the Master Plan PUD, including proposed physical changes to accommodate increasing enrollment to 2,400 full-time equivalent students; rerouting of the existing one-way road -term currently cutting through the campus and creating safety hazards for regular and handicapped students; creating a ring road around the heart of the campus, relocated behind Riley Hall, and creating a commons for student interaction. Mr. Thompson advised that a new student center or community building was proposed, that would have multiple uses and serve as a classroom building and cafeteria; and construction was proposed for a parking ramp on the site of the existing tennis courts to alleviate parking issues and keep more parking on campus. Mr. Thompson noted the challenges for that portion of the campus, with the boundary of Roseville and Arden Hills cutting through the proposed building site. Mr. Thompson advised that possible additions to other campus buildings, and a new dormitory building slightly reconfigured from the 1986 PUD, in addition to a possible addition to the KTIS building were being considered, depending on the college’s ability to purchase additional properties, in addition to the three building it currently owns off campus, and their plan to move administrative staff into the former Edina Realty building, thus helping to eliminate peak hour traffic exiting the campus. Mr. Thompson further detailed traffic and parking impact studies completed to-date; additional students resulting in additional staff; impacts to surrounding intersections based on peak hour studies and data assumptions; ongoing discussions with the City Engineer and staff; the four intersection considered: Fairview Avenue at Lydia Avenue; Lydia Ave at the college entrance; Snelling Avenue at Lydia Avenue, being the most impacted and having the lowest level of service); and Snelling Avenue at County Road C-2. Mr. Thompson extensively detailed assumptions used for criteria; existing conditions; morning and afternoon peaks; background conditions with improvements; general growth assumptions; increment from growth in general traffic and assumptions for college enrollment; and impacts to service levels. Discussion between Commissioners, staff and the applicant representatives included Gottfried the standards used for the traffic study; mitigation assumptions and projections; City Engineer Debra Bloom advising that a traffic consultant had been hired to review the study, and included standard practices and assumptions with potential development for a Twin Lakes redevelopment proposal, allowing for a more comprehensive report to be provided by staff to the Commission at the March meeting; general trend assumptions; existing and future parking capacity versus demand; storm water management studies and proposals and hydrologist studies for quality, quantity and rate methods. Additional discussion included which portions of the 107 acres owned by the college were on campus; a summary by college representatives of public comments and concerns received by the college to-date (traffic and intersection impacts; impacts to Little Johanna’s water quality; interaction of the college and its students with residents off-site; and residential living facilities off-campus and impacts to neighborhoods); and changes made by the college to their plans based on those neighborhood comments. Mr. Thompson noted that a number of neighborhood concerns on the north side of the campus had been received regarding noise (i.e., students, car doors, garbage pick ups); lights; and the number of students, specifically along the east side of the building. Further discussion among Commissioners, staff and applicant representatives included possibly increasing plantings and/or berming to provide noise control and