pm_070307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 7 Ms. McGehee opined that the entire Roseville community planning process was flawed; and strongly suggested that the City consider improving the process; and used the City of Arden Hills’ planning process as a favorable example. Ms. McGehee reviewed her written comments concerning her request for a discretionary EAW/EIS for the proposed expansion; a city-enforced enrollment cap for Northwestern College; and opined the detriment to the City’s tax base through the college’s increased tax exempt growth beyond the confines of the campus itself. Ms. Cary addressed Ms. McGehee’s actual full-time equivalent enrollment projections; noting that the proposed plan is long-term (15 plus years) and that the architects and administration had determined the maximum footprint the campus could facilitate; with the college had, nor would endorse, plans that exceeded those projections. Dan Cooke, 3070 Shorewood Lane Mr. Cooke opined that some neighbors had been dissatisfied with the college’s implementation of plans and designs over the years; and questioned the validity of the college’s comments that they wished to minimize further degradation of the neighborhood, and whether they were only interested in meeting minimum requirements to avoid litigation, or if they were truly interested in a good relationship with their neighbors. Ms. Cary advised that the college made every attempt to take neighborhood comments and concerns into consideration. Ms. Cary noted that the college was working to accommodate neighbor requires and provide opportunities for campus access to provide a good neighbor relationship. Ms. Cary further advised that, at this time, there were no specific designs or no funding for many of the buildings, thus making it difficult to respond to specific preferences and comments. Mr. Humphries concurred, noting that the college was open to work with neighbors in either or both communities throughout the process, once specific plans were developed, and expressed willingness to meet with a group of neighbor representatives, as evidenced by the college-initiated informational meetings to-date and responsiveness to public comment and concerns to-date. Mr. Paschke noted the City’s approval and permitting process; and spoke in support of the college’s continued efforts to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Paschke further noted the process for residents to bring their concerns to the attention of staff to allow staff to make determinations if specific code violations were occurring (i.e., noise violations). Mr. Paschke noted the difficulty of staff to be responsive when they were not made aware of possible violations. Ms. Cary noted that the college had made accommodations to reduce noise on campus by limiting the number of home games and limited field use; however, she advised that she was unaware of any violations to ordinance by the college and would abide by City notice of such violations and pursuing appropriate action. Ms. Cary noted that calls regarding concerns related to campus issues could be directed to campus security, staffed 24/7. Mr. Humphries concurred, noting that when past concerns had been raised, college administration and athletic directors had reduced the sound and redirected speakers to alleviate the concern. Acting Chair Bakeman noted that every time a development plan came forward, it was unfortunate, but there was bound to be some dissatisfaction.