My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0621_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0621_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 2:54:54 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:42:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Summary of Comments: Concept 3 <br />Positive <br />• Offices at Cleveland/C2 (2 comments) <br />• Lessening of residential intensity from commercial <br />west of Langton Lake toward the park <br />• Good views along parkway <br />Negative <br />• Residential locationilayout: split by roadway, too <br />close to commercial, etc. (4 comments) <br />• Big box location too close to iake/residential (4 <br />comments) <br />• Parkway <br />Summary of Comments: Concept 4 <br />Positive <br />• Good views along parkway <br />Negative <br />• Big box location (4 comments) <br />• Residential locationilayout: split by roadway, not <br />safe feeling (3 comments) <br />• Parkway (2 comments) <br />• PotentialtrafficonFaiwiew <br />Overall Summaryllnterpretation of <br />Comments <br />• Concepts 1& 2 had many comments in common <br />— Positive: retail location and layout <br />— Positive: considerincluding hotel/conf. centeras engine <br />— Positive: communiiy asset possible on south end of <br />Langton Lake <br />• A notable positive on Concept 1 was the inclusion <br />of office at Cleveland and C2 (the absence of this <br />was also a negative on Concept 2). <br />�� <br />� �. <br />t ry . <br />� <br />Overall Summaryllnterpretation of <br />Comments <br />� <br />• Concepts 3& 4: panel had concerns about both <br />residential and retail location and layout, as well as <br />concems about parkway <br />• Concepts 3& 4: only positive comments dealt with <br />office at Cleveland/C2 and good views along <br />parkway, both of which can be addressed by other <br />concepts <br />• Concepts 3& 4 were not explored further. <br />Overall Summaryllnterpretation of <br />Comments <br />. The largest numberof negative commeritson Concept 1 <br />had to do with the presence of Twin Lakes Parkway (7 <br />�artxrwk� <br />. The largest number of poeitive commerits on Concept 2 had <br />to do with the absence of Twin Lakes Parkway (10 <br />commerits) <br />• There were many positive commerits on Concept 2 <br />regardingthe extent and arrangementof residential use (6 <br />�r�r+��] <br />. Concept 2 had the most total commer�s and the most <br />positive commerits, with fewer negatives than Concept 1 <br />(the majority of which dealt with wanting office at <br />Clevelend/C2). <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.