My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf10-027
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2010
>
pf10-027
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2015 1:30:45 PM
Creation date
7/2/2013 8:25:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
10-027
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
/ <br />� • <br />Bryan Lloyd <br />From: Pat Trudgeon <br />Posted At: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:39 PM <br />Conversation: Adult daycare at Centre Pointe - Final Review <br />Posted To: DRC - Final Review <br />Subject: Adult daycare at Centre Pointe - Final Review <br />The PUD is pretty restricitve regarding uses, so it shoud be amended. Otherwise, the building codes will still <br />apply regardless of what use it is. If there is difficulty in meeting the codes, the applicant will need to address <br />it. (Bryan has made him aware of our concerns vis a vis the building codes). <br />Besides amending the PUD, I don't think we have the ability to reach back and require fixes to a development- <br />wide problem (parking). <br />From: Bryan Lloyd <br />Posted: Monday, September 13, 2010 3:04 PM <br />Subject: Adult daycare at Centre Pointe - Final Review <br />Here is the applicant's description of the proposed daycare, and here are the phvsical plans. <br />Aside from the question about how budrensome the building code requirements might be given the proposed <br />change of occupancy of the structure, the primary concern after initial review was the parking/circulation during <br />the drop-off and pick-up times. I still don't know how many adults might be "cared for" during a typical day, so <br />I don't think we're too much further to being comfortable about these issues. <br />But is this really just a senior center? It looks like a place where aging folks can spend the day with some <br />company and programmed activities and lunch. I mean "adult care facilities" are grouped with hospitals <br />according to our zoning code; that seems to imply some health/medical involvement. The applicant's description <br />looks more like a"meeting hall", "physical culture(?)/health services", "private club", or "cultural institution" - <br />all of which would be permitted in the B-4 district (which is the foundation for this PUD). Calling it a senior <br />center doesn't fix the circulation problem, but our ability to do something about it might go away if this is <br />actually a permitted use (because the need for a PUD amendment goes away). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.