2011_0613_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

You and/or the resident familiar with development states that there are places where placing buildings closer to the street can work, but that this is not one of those sites and uses existing buildings as a means to challenge or discount the Code. I would state that without the regulation of building placement and other standards in the new Zoning ordinance, there would be no way for the Planning Staff to implement the visions of Imagine Roseville 2025 or the goals and policies identified throughout the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, Roseville would never achieve the desires of the community. Lastly, it is stated within the fourth bullet point that "it is not clear, upon closer review, that the current plan actually meets these goals", I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. The Planning Division has reviewed this proposal's site plan, specifically the drive-through, to the Comprehensive Plan and the goals, and policies adopted in 2009. The seven policy statements listed (included below) are some of the goals/policies that Roseville has adopted and of which we have concluded this development proposal achieves. We have provided analysis on how/why we believe the project meets these policies and I think it is only fair that since you disaaree, additional clarification as to why be submitted and shared. Ilk _218114M Again, the request before the Planning Commission is associated with a Conditional Use necessary to support the proposed drive-through teller/ATM islands along the north of the building. All other 4-' components of the site improvement are regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, specifically those listed under the Community Business zoning district and any additional requirement within the Property Performance Standards section. Should you have additional comments and/or questions, please feel free to email or call me. Thomas R. Paschke Rosevlille C.I. ty Planner 2660 Cli.viic Center ve (651) 792-7074