My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02355
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2300
>
pf_02355
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:48:43 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:10:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2355
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Address
2231 RICE ST
Applicant
DUFFY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Status
APPROVED
PIN
122923440027
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
344
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 />John Duffy 8/26/91 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />In addition to the standards listed in Chapters 7 and 17, the design standards in Chapter 19 <br />apply as well. These form the basis for much of the City's detailed review. I call your <br />attention to Section 19.010, Paragraph 14, which states, in part: <br /> <br />"All site plans, grading, and utility plans, landscape plans, building plans, and sUlveys shall <br />be prepared for review by the City staff and shall be prepared by the appropriate <br />professional personnel as licensed by the State of Minnesota." <br /> <br />Taken together, these Code references clearly indicate great discretion on the City's part in <br />reviewing a PUD, and require a developer to work closely with qualified professionals and the <br />City staff in order to get a project approved. Many of the plans we have reviewed recently <br />for your townhouse project did not appear to have been carefully thought out or prepared by <br />design professionals. I do not believe this is the best use of either your time and resources or <br />ours. <br /> <br />You have also asked me to list all issues related to the development of the property. This <br />would be difficult to do, especially for a PUD, where some design flexibility is assumed. I refer <br />you again to the standards in the chapters of the City Code cited above, and to my previous <br />correspondence to you. There were, however, several items uncovered in our latest review of <br />the plan received in our office on 19 August. These are as follows: <br /> <br />1) Roadways must be at least 5' from a property line. In some places this dimension <br />was scaled at 2', which is unacceptable. <br /> <br />2) The grade on an outdoor parking area, perpendicular to the cars, should be kept <br />below 4%, preferably less than 3%. Some areas were shown at 5% on your plan, which <br />is unacceptable. <br /> <br />3) There should be a sidewalk on each of the roadways accessing the property, to both <br />Minnesota Avenue and Rice Street. The walk should be 5' minimum width, and ideally <br />would be set back from the roadway a minimum of 5' as well. <br /> <br />4) The proposed grading showed steep slopes directly into the side and back of several <br />buildings, which would cause drainage and water problems. Grading should allow for <br />water to drain away from the building foundations. <br /> <br />I want to emphasize again that the City is willing to consider a project such as you have <br />proposed, and we want to work with you to achieve the best design. I hope the above <br />information will help you to more clearly understand the City's position and approach. Please <br />call if I can be of further assistance. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br />UBAN, INC. <br /> <br />cc: Rick JopkeV <br />Craig Waldron <br />Gordie Howe <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.