My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-03-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2008
>
2008-03-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2010 12:26:03 PM
Creation date
3/23/2010 10:04:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/25/2008
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Twin Lakes Update <br />Ms. Bloom updated the Commission on Twin Lakes. Member Vanderwall <br />asked when planning a site how do they know what percentage of the property <br />is going to commercial, what residential, etc. Mr. Schwartz said the land use <br />was anticipated in the master plan. <br />Chair DeBenedet said. it's important to note that the total cost of all <br />improvements necessary for the development is allocated back to the <br />redevelopers and doesn't come out of tax money. <br />Chair DeBenedet asked if the developer agreements are designed so that there <br />will be a reconciliation. of costs at the end of the project. Mr: Schwartz said the <br />City has retained a financial consultant to work out the details of how <br />development costs are paid back if the City chooses financial participation. <br />7. McGough Plan for Twin Lakes <br />Ms. Bloom presented the McGough plan, which is an application for concept <br />plan. that will go before the Planning Commission next week. Mr. Schwartz <br />said that there isn't a lot of detail in the concept plan in terms of how buildings <br />are actually located, etc; so it's important for the PWBTC to comment back to <br />the Planning Commission about what they'd Iike to see. <br />Chair DeBenedet was questioning the cul-de-sac size requirement in the report <br />and whether it was necessary since the goal was to use as little pavement as <br />possible. Ms. Bloom said that the city code for cul-de-sacs was very clear and <br />that's where the requirement came from. Member Vanderwall said that for <br />reference the turning radius of a school bus is 160'. <br />Mei~lber Neprash asked if they were heading toward having no Jana Lane. Ms. <br />Bloom said Iona Lane was never intended to be developed as a major access. <br />Member Neprash asked why the City wasn't telling the developer not to use <br />Iona: Mr. Schwartz said the City has been telling them that. <br />Chair DeBenedet said what he'd like to see is mare trees and islands within <br />parking lots. Member Neprash said he didn't see how this plan would meet the <br />infiltration water reduction standards of Rice Creek Watershed. Ms. Bloom <br />said that any developer would need a Rice Creek permit sa they would have to <br />meet requirements before construction begins. <br />Chair DeBenedet said he is anxious to hear how McGough plans to meet the <br />Rice Creek Watershed standards. Mr. Schwartz said that maybe a <br />representative from McGough could come to a Future meeting to discuss it. <br />Member Vandenvall asked if Arthur Street was just going to come to an end. <br />Mr. Schwartz said no, that the plan was to have it connect to Twin Lakes <br />Parkway in a T intersection. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.