pm_070207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 07, 2007 Page 6 Nancy Jacobson, Chairperson of the Arden Hills #3 Association Subcommittee, resident of 3188 Asbury in Arden Hills, and representing both Roseville and Arden Hills' residents in the Association adjacent to the college Ms. Jacobson noted the difficulty for residents to attend both the Arden Hills and Roseville meetings when they were scheduled on the same night; and noted that many impacted residents were attending the Arden Hills meeting and couldn’t voice their opinions at Roseville tonight. Ms. Jacobson thanked Commissioners for their insightful questions and comments. Ms. Jacobson questioned the impacts to residents along Asbury Avenue when the entire neighborhood was currently a quiet, dark neighborhood, and the proposed development would create additional dorms, a perimeter road, the student center, and parking ramp, and questioned the overall impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Jacobson referenced the written comment provided, as part of the record, from the Arden Hills #3 Association Subcommittee; and noted their concerns with increased safety amenities, meaning keeping lights on 24/7; encouraged that the interchange remain walkable for students and residents crossing the street; as well as for vehicular traffic. Valerie Churchward-Smith,3093 Asbury Ms. Churchward-Smith questioned what specific plans had been provided to define the edge of the campus, with building #24 adjacent to her property, and no provisions of monies identified for berming or screening in the Master Plan that would provide some protection for the residents. Ms. Churchward-Smith expressed appreciation to the college for opening up the campus to the community. Chuck Lethert, 3085 Asbury representative Mr. Lethert opined that there was a lot in the proposed plan that was “to be determined,” property yet to be acquired; and a number of things that were unknown yet would have great impact on properties along Asbury Avenue, and the surrounding area. Mr. Lethert further opined that as the campus continued to grow, using St. Thomas campus as an example, overcapacity may become a problem. Mr. Lethert asked that the Planning Commission take into consideration the future need for the college to acquire additional adjacent properties; and how that would be accomplished. Mr. Lethert advised that he had no problem with the campus as it currently existed, and that they had been a very amenable neighbor; however, he questioned whether the campus and supporting services were beginning to “crowd” the Asbury Avenue side. Timothy Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood lane (across Lake Johanna from Building #8) Mr. Callaghan asked where the proposed field house would be located, expressing confusion from the materials received in the mail, and questioned if additional wooded areas would be removed between the field and Lydia Avenue to locate buildings or relocate athletic fields. Mr. Callaghan questioned if there would be a need for sound abatement considerations due to the loudspeakers for athletic events; questioned the actual location of the proposed road in relationship to the bluff and shoreline management restrictions; relocation of the proposed building site for Building #24 in 1986, and its current location closer to the property line and why such a significant difference was allowed from the original proposal and if similar changes would be approved after the original plan was presented. Mr. Callaghan further questioned the accuracy of the proposed access roads; parking adjacent to athletic fields; proposal to add two lanes to Lydia Avenue and how any additional roadway or right-of-way could be found; and how the existing PUD process assured residents of the final product. Mr. Callaghan expressed further concern about existing noise from the loudspeaker system at athletic events, in deference to City