pm_070307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 3 administrative to student ratio; alternative education programs; rationale for the location of the proposed dormitory, given topography considerations and Master Plan realities; and the college’s role in improvements at intersections adjacent to the college as a beneficiary and a responsible neighbor. Additional discussion included natural protection areas on campus through detailed surface water management plans, above and beyond the legal and procedural requirements; importance to the college of protecting the bodies of water; college’s willingness to continue to work with neighbors on areas of concern (i.e., the refuse hauler hours now solved, and adjusting the athletic field speakers to reduce noise projection to neighbors); and continued willingness of the college to be responsive to expressed concerns. Mr. Lindgren and Commissioners reviewed each specific condition detailed in the staff report; with Mr. Lindgren expressing the applicant’s support for the conditions, and continued fine-tuning of the PUD in staff/applicant discussions; and the ramifications and impacts of each condition to the applicant, the City and its residents. Discussion among Commissioners and the applicant further included the proposed berm and grades; location of the ring road and elevations; setback considerations and requirements between the Cities of Arden Hills and Roseville; the college’s commitment to not grow beyond their optimum size for the existing campus and this type of institution; students, academic programs, and outreach into the community; community events open to the public; and possible noise and light abatement and/or mitigation for adjacent neighbors to the existing dorm (building #9). Further discussion included location of the parking garage and rationale for its location; circulation of vehicles within the campus and ingress/egress issues; shuttling for students and for athletic events; off-site parking arrangements with other institutions with large parking lots for special events; student safety in crossing from off-campus housing across Snelling Avenue; and creative thinking for accommodating issues raised by the public. Public Questions Acting Chair Bakeman clarified for the public that the issues for discussion related to the PUD application and their location on the campus, not off-campus; and advised the audience that the Commission would first hear questions for the applicant and Commissioners; then would proceed to comments; and respectfully requested that speakers allow as much brevity as possible for their comments. Theresa (Tess) DeGeest, 3116 Ridgewood Road Ms. DeGeest noted the close-knit community in the neighborhood, and sought clarification on the height of the berm above the parking garage and dorm. Mr. Lindgren responded that the parking garage should be below the berm; and while the building was not fully designed yet, was anticipated to be roughly at grade level, with the dorm one story above the potential berm (overall a 2-3 story building). Mr. Lindgren noted that there would be plantings on top of the berm as well, further screening adjacent properties. Greg Larson, 3077 Asbury (east property line) Mr. Larson sought additional and specific clarification with berming; questioning the existence of a twenty-foot (20’) power line easement or right-of-way; setback considerations; and opined that the public should be allowed comment at each phase of the proposed development, particularly concerning the berming.