My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02505
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2500
>
pf_02505
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:55:40 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 11:48:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2505
Planning Files - Type
Special Use Permit
Address
10 ROSEDALE CENTER
Applicant
COMPUTER CITY/BEECHWOOD ACQ
Status
APPROVED
PIN
122923140002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
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 />computer City, Case Ho. 2505 <br /> <br />page 4 <br /> <br />The administation of zoning standards does not guarantee the best <br />design for every parcel in the city. The City has adopted <br />standards that express what its expectations are, and when these <br />are met, the applicants have met their responsibili~y. The City is <br />then obliged to decide the issue. <br /> <br />There are other concerns that have been raised concerning building <br />materials, sight lines to the existing shopping center, building <br />orientation, and others. There are other ways to design the <br />project on the site, and we have spent a great deal of time with <br />the applicant trying to accommodate their program on the site. We <br />have also worked to modify the plans to satisfy the adjacent <br />owners and tenants, but given the constraints of the site - shape, <br />access, existing storm sewer easement we believe that the <br />proposed plan is reasonable. <br /> <br />Furthermore, the constraint that the applicants have imposed on <br />themselves - a one-way angle parking solution - directly responds <br />to this site's contribution to the traffic problem. <br /> <br />There are three questions for the Planning commission: <br /> <br />1) Is it appropriate to apply the setback standards from <br />the Business districts, as they have been applied on other <br />free-standing parcels in the SC District? <br /> <br />2) Given the fact that there is an existing internal <br />traffic congestion problem on this site (a shopping of over <br />300,000 square feet), is it reasonable to limit the <br />development of this relatively small remnant parcel, which <br />is under separate ownership? <br /> <br />3) More generally, does the project as proposed reasonably <br />meet the city's adopted standards? <br /> <br />3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />We recommend approval of the special Use Permit granting setbacks <br />less than the SC standards with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1) That the parking lot be designed as <br />submitted plans with one-way parking <br />appropriately. <br /> <br />shown <br />and <br /> <br />on the <br />signed <br /> <br />2) That landscape and utility plans be approved by city <br />staff. <br /> <br />3) That the required roadway easement for County Road B-2 <br />be dedicated as determined by the County and City staff. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.