pm_070307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 5 Nancy Jacobson, Co-Chair 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’s, and the Arden Hills #3 Community Group, had submitted their written comments in opposition to the proposal as it related to quality of life and environment concerns. Ms. Jacobson opined that there were many mature trees in the area and questioned their removal and/or replacement and impacts to the attempts at screening, including species of trees. Ms. Jacobson further addressed lighting pollution concerns and need to specify type of fixtures for down lighting; hours of operation and security issues. Mr. Humphries advised that the college was appreciative of the mature trees as well, and that they were an important part of the campus and their preservation would be given all due consideration during the planning and construction process. Mr. Paschke addressed lighting issues, as per City Code, and as conditioned as part of the PUD approval process. Valerie Churchward-Smith, 3093 Asbury (non-resident, family home) Ms. Smith opined that this project represented a dramatic impact on the entire eastern side of the campus; addressed zoning differenced between the Cities of Arden Hills and Roseville; the perceived burden of density happening to the City of Roseville for student housing and parking; and her preference for relocating proposed Building #24. Ms. Smith questioned emergency access around that specific building; setbacks and tree density. Mr. Paschke advised that, since the building was not yet designed, the Fire Marshal had not reviewed the access, nor made a determination. Mr. Paschke further advised that staff could seek preliminary comment between this meeting and the City Council’s consideration of the project. Mr. Paschke clarified that the proposed location of structures is not final; and that staff didn’t have specific locations that they supported until further in the development, and as part of the overall permitting review process. Ms. Bloom addressed City Code and other agency requirements for bluffs and shoreline areas. Carol Stellwagen, 3096 Ridgewood Road Ms. Stellwagen sought clarification for the location of buildings at this point; and requested guarantees for their location and berming; and opined that comparable zoning was needed in conjunction with the City of Arden Hills. Mr. Paschke clarified the actual application request; existing Master Plan; no amendment necessary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and making the applicant meet certain criteria and conditions as part of the PUD approval process to accommodate their growth needs while achieving safety of the community and its citizens. Ms. Stellwagen thanked TKDA for their detailed, written responses to previous questions raised by residents. Ms. Stellwagen sought further comment regarding projected student populations and rationale for adding Building #24. Ms. Cary advised that including Building #24 was an attempt to make the college less of a commuter campus; addressed current rules with freshmen not allowed vehicles, and possible further extensions of that ruling; and future educational needs through other venues (i.e., on-line or satellite students).