1993_0426_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

t College Propertiese Case o* 2491 Page 6 proposed solution of a 41 setback with a row of evergreens to screen the bui ld ing from the roadway i s not ideal, but is Treasonable given the constraints* We have not analyzed the landscape plan in detail to determine if there are conflicts with utility lines or easementse We will work with the project architect, landscape architect and engineer to resolve any potential conflicts. Pa kirk There are no separate parking requirements in the Roseville Code for senior housingf Required parking for senior independent living is typ�i ca l ly estimated at 0.6 to. 0 r 8 spaces per unit. The project has 10 spaces underground in two levels, or O.85 per unit, which should be more than adequate. Surface parking provided is 126 spaces for 236 units, or more than o.5 per unit. This number will reed to satisfy employee and visitor parking. Based on representations by the applicant of staff levels and number. of visitorso we believe the parking will be adequatea Parking provided for the motel is 64 spaces for 57 units, which provides one per unit plus 7 for employees. We. believe this will be adequate Parking for the student housing and the future college building will be shared in one lot adjacent to these buildings# The phasing in g p lan indicates 48 spaces to be . provided immediately for the student housing* This is more than two spaces. per unit and will be more than adequatee An additional 68 spaces ' are voted for the future college building-P Since vie do not know the specific use of this building or even its specific size,. we cannot be sure these extra spaces will be adequateo If the building functions like an office building, these 68 spaces would ' support only about 14,000 square feet of space, instead of the 20,000 to 27,000 square feet suggested. parking for classroom use is based on number of classrooms and number of students and would have to be calculated at the time a specific design is proposed. However, the a plicant "s narrative suggests that a future parking ramp 1 ht be bu1lt in this location, in which case considerably the space could support the necessary parking for a larger buildings Ligh,ting ecif is 'lighting plans have not been submitted , but we W4 p 11 review the final plans against the Code standards for adequate light levels in the parking lots and for glare and spillover into the adjacent residential neighborhoods fil