pm_070307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Cooke specifically addressed the abiding concerns of the neighborhood and unresolved issues with the legitimate rights of the college to develop their property; and the importance for the process to reaming open for the benefit and well-being of all parties. Mr. Cooke further addressed the height of Building #19; its placement and design in relationship to grade; and visibility to the lake; and mitigation to prevent lights shining across Lake Johanna. Acting Chair Bakeman advised that the building in question was located in Arden Hills, and would need to adhere to that city’s code requirements. Lillian Chiarella , 1708 Millwood (? – 85 years old…) Chiarella Ms. expressed her dismay with the continuing tax loss being sustained in Ramsey County with the properties being taken over by colleges. Recess Acting Chair Bakeman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened it at 9:09 p.m.; announcing that the Commission would now hear comments from the public. Public Comment Written comment was received from Jerry and Nancy Irsfeld (no address provided) in opposition to the expansion, and included for the record, and attached hereto and made a part thereof. Additional written comment in opposition previously received at the February 7, 2007 Public Hearing was provided as a bench handout at the meeting, from Arden Hills #3 Association Subcommittee; Greg Larson, 3077 Asbury Street; Marie P. Churchward; in addition to additional written comment in support from Thomas L. Fabel, 1550 Edgewater Avenue, Arden Hills; Paul Anderson, 1707 Lydia Avenue; Kristin Janes, 250 Grandview Avenue W, #258; and Julie Larson, Executive Director of the Roseville Visitors Association (RVA); and attached hereto and made a part thereof. Another bench handout in opposition, dated March 7, 2007, was presented by Marie Churchward, 3093 Asbury N; as well as one in opposition from Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane, attached hereto and made a part thereof. Dan Cooke Mr. Cooke spoke in opposition to the project; expressing concern with the impacts to his backyard and his property; concurring with the comments of Mr. Callahan regarding the inadequacies and confusion of and the need for more specifics in the City’s PUD approval process. James Anderson Mr. Anderson opined that the approval process seemed to be lacking in specific and able to be revised at the “whim” of the applicant. Mr. Anderson reiterated his concerns with student housing in single-family homes off-campus; and expressed frustration with errors on the City’s website following post card notice, even though it was corrected when staff was alerted. Mr. Anderson further opined that the Planning Commission and City Council should take more serious consideration of the interests of its residents, and provide opportunities for more input.