Laserfiche WebLink
3�� 9.8 <br />388 <br />38'� <br />:s9� <br />3:) " <br />S;�Z <br />393 <br />—. <br />Lot Size Lot Size Impervious <br />Units Units/Acre (acres) Re9' Coverage Stories <br />acres <br />Sunrise 79 27.3 2.9 3.63 44% 3 <br />Heritage 50 25 1.95 2.87 50% 3 above <br />Place parking <br />Accessible 22 26 g g2 � 57% 3 <br />Space <br />Applewood 96 27.4 3.5 5.82 52% 3-4 above <br />Pointe parking <br />Greenhouse �02 26.6 4.5 6.15 54% 3 above <br />Village parking <br />McCarrons 42 33 1.27 2.39 58% 3 above <br />Pond parking <br />Applewood 96 28 3.4 6 51 °/a 3 above <br />Pointe II parking <br />Ferriswood 4� 3.92 12 N/A 41% 1+ <br />Townhomes <br />Midland � 74 � � 103 10. I 45°/a 3 above <br />Grove parking <br />Orchard 55 25 (21) 2.23 (2.61) 3.35 51 %(44%) 3 above <br />parking <br />During the City Council meeting of May 1 l, the Council forwarded specific items for the <br />Planning Commission to consider; these include: <br />a. <br />b. <br />C. <br />Review of the appropriate impervious coverage calculations on the site; <br />Review of the building's relative height based on sight lines and topography of <br />the site; <br />Review of actual scale perspectives relative to height issues from various angles <br />and giving consideration to roof slopes, number of stories, etc.; <br />:3:?�: d. Review whether sufficient improvements have been made with respect to distances <br />s:;:; from adjacent properties based on setback requirements and perspectives from <br />3=?r adjacent properties; <br />,�� - e. Review of the safety of access points and traffic issues on Midland Grove Road, <br />3:�� not only based on number of vehicles, but more specifically density of the area <br />:?{:!' and design of the road; and connections to various and major intersections in <br />�u� that area (i.e., Counry Road B at Midland Grove Road). <br />�J1 <br />ao� <br />ao� <br />,u� <br />�06 <br />��.� <br />4J& <br />4Q� <br />9.9 The Roseville City Code does not include an impervious coverage requirement for any <br />zoning district other than R-1 and R-2 properties, so it is difficult for the Planning <br />Division to comment on whether the proposal includes too much impervious coverage — <br />especially since the Rice Creek Watershed and City Code require storm water <br />management be provided that address water quality and volume/rate of run-off. It is <br />worth noting that most of the projects analyzed above all have a similar impervious <br />coverage, generally above 50%. The Planning Division has concluded that there is no <br />rationale for determining appropriate impervious coverage when the City does not have a <br />policy. <br />PF09-002 RCA 071309.doc <br />Page 1 1 of 17 <br />