My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_1025_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_1025_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 4:22:20 PM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
268
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
�� <br />� <br />i <br />ti <br />� <br />�� <br />m�ed housing/retail area. <br />Member Ipsen asked for details of parking. Is all the parking necessary? (especially in <br />the southwest comer). (Uses a ndx of uses and peak times to reduce pavement). <br />Member Pust asked why the Big Box cannot be located at the corner of "C" and <br />Cleveland. (Do not want back side of Big Box at main entry to new neighborhood). <br />� <br />t� Chair Traynor asked if LEED standards could be used. How does this project compare? <br />1 d� Michael Noonan explained his memorandum on meeting many LEED standards. The <br />I I U.S. Builders Association has adopted LEED standards: lot designs, energy conservation, <br />]� HVAC equipment standards, water conservation, and home owners/property management <br />E � education. <br />i� <br />C� <br />O �1 <br />L '' <br />I'� <br />L'� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�y <br />_______Ten Minute Recess - <br />Chair Traynor asked Steve Wilson (City Traffic Consultant) to explain the original <br />Stakeholder concept for a jog or disconnect in the Parkway. The Parkway serves to <br />access internal uses. The disconnect increased traffic on County Road C and D. The <br />connected parkways keep more traffic on the Parkway and out ofthe existing <br />neighborhoods. Mr. Wilson explained traffic capacity of a round-about. He will review <br />this with Joe Samuel and report on this at the next meeting (October 14, 2004). <br />=� Judy Holgen, 1934 Shryer, asked for details of the health limits on contamination. How <br />�� will the Lake be managed? How will contaminants be cleaned? Dennis Welsch explained <br />�� the current remedial action plan progress and the review currently being undertaken by <br />�" MnPCA. Michael Noonan noted contaminants will be addressed with ponding and <br />:�i filtering. Redevelopment will be an assist to clean the Lake waters. <br />�� <br />�� <br />:; I <br />; �. <br />�� <br />;� <br />�� <br />3� <br />3' <br />� y <br />Natasha Walter, 3100 Prior Circle, asked for details of pathways, bike lanes and <br />parkways. Michael Noonan explained vehicle traffic will be distinct from pedestrian. <br />Rike lanes will be constructed and planned with fewer conflicts. <br />Tim Callahan, 3062 Shoreview Lane, asked if valuation was similar to 2001 plan. <br />Welsch explained the proposal of $212M vs. the origina12001 plan of ���JO-? ��A'f <br />covering the entire site. How can buildings be tall within 300 feet of the Lake? Green <br />spaces are shown also as ponds and parks. Is there a difference here? <br />:+� Terry Moses, 1776 Maple Lane, asked what the normal setback from a park property line <br />�� was. (There is no specific regulation separating the buildings from park property line). <br />� � Thomas Paschke explained setbacks. Staffwill prepare setbacks from the park, adjacent <br />�� to the property line. B-6 and Shoreland regulations may differentiate the measurement. <br />�� <br />�� Tam McGehee expressed concern that the City has no control over PUDs. What control <br />�� do citizens have? Who can review a PUD? How small a change can be done by staffby <br />��5 comparison to a major amendment? Why does the development not have two story <br />Paee � �� I � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.