pf08-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

��i�� 112 113 114 115 110 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 12B 129 130 131 6.7 The revised plans indicate that the proposed building has been reduced in length by about 20 feet, resulting in a building setback of 22 feet from the southern side property line. The intent of condition "f" above, was to ensure an appropriate building setback from the side property line should the office and adjacent shopping center properties no longer be owned by one entity; because this goal will be achieved by the revised proposal without recording additional documentation, the current recommendation will not include such a requirement. 6.8 Condition "e" of the GENE1tAL CoNCEPT approval was recommended in order to ensure that enough parking was available to accommodate the additional parking demand on the days when employee training sessions are held in the proposed office expansion without excessive on-street parking. This condition hinged on the initial willingness of the Roseville Covenant Church to enter into a formal parking arrangement, but the church has since decided that encumbering its property with an easement is not in its best interest. Although the City cannot prohibit parking on a public street where parking is allowed, it will be incumbent upon Presbyterian Homes to minimize the overflow; this may be accomplished by such means as encouraging ride-sharing among visitors to the site and/or maintaining informal, cooperative relationships with nearby property owners with parking areas that can absorb overflow parking during typical office hours. Because Planning Division staff believes that requiring the applicant to enter into a formal agreement with an unwilling third party would not be reasonable, such condition will be eliminated from the recommendation. 132 7.0 OTHER COMMENTS 133 7.1 A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District will be necessary, but this is part of the 134 normal course of site permitting and the F[1vAL PUD may be approved without the � 35 inclusion of these technical details. 136 7.2 No members of the public have contacted staff with concerns or comments about the 137 proposal. � 3� 7.3 Although indicated on the proposed site plans, signage on the property is not being 139 considered at this time. Community Development staff recommends leaving the approval � ao of signage to the normal process: a Master Sign Plan, in this case. 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 14 �3 7.4 A draft Planned Unit Development Agreement is included with this staff report as Attachment H. The exhibits identified in the Agreement are the same as the materials included with this report as Attachments E and F and (for the sake of reducing paper consumption) are not duplicated in this packet. The Agreement also identifies a lighting plan (Exhibit E) which is a largely technical document which is not included with this report. Finally, the PUD Agreement identifies Exhibit H, a proposed development schedule; at the time this report was written, such a projected schedule had not been requested. PF08-024 RCA 091508 Page 4 of 5 • •