Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />-.., <br />0 <br />6.29 The proposed restaurant patio shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the nearest <br />access exit lane. <br />7.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />7.1 On November 7, 2007, the City Planner submitted the Planning Commission with a <br />revised set of conditions of approval for the Har Mar PUD Amendment. These <br />conditions were as follows: <br />a. <br />b. <br />c. <br />d. <br />e. <br />f. <br />g• <br />The easterly parking reconfiguration/reconstruction shall include an additional <br />buffering and/or a mix of landscaping and a screen fence. <br />The multi-tenant structure shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the north <br />property/roadway easement. <br />The restaurant patio shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the nearest <br />exiting lane and shall include a berm and landscape. <br />The height of the building shall not exceed 26 feet in height. <br />The trash enclosure shall include a roof. <br />The project shall be subject to the traffic mitigation conditions stated in Section <br />6.11 of this Project Report. <br />The proposed project shall meet all other applicable requirements of §1006 and <br />1010 of the Roseville City Code. <br />8.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: <br />8.1 On November 7, 2007, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing <br />regarding the request AMENDMENT for Har Mar Mall. At the meeting a few adjacent <br />residents addressed the Commission asking questions and stating concerns over <br />screening, storm water and snow removal. The City Planner clarified screening <br />requirements based on the Cub Foods project of 2001 and those required as a component <br />of this application/approval process. The City planner indicated a willingness to work <br />with the applicant on addressing adjacent resident concerns. <br />8.2 The City Engineer addressed the Commission to review the traffic study and staff's <br />recommendations, specifically the closure of the westerly right-in/right-out on to County <br />Road B. The City Engineer stated that at a minimum the staff could support just the <br />elimination of the right-out. <br />PF07-0�3 RCA 012808.doc Page 12 of 13 <br />