pf_02628 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 12,1994 5 addition, there would be retaining walls and berming along the south edge. Along the north edge, the project would be softened by having fewer units adjacent to Grandview Avenue. Peterson also stated that the roof lines had been changed to enhance the architectural style and to make it more conducive with single-family homes. Member Rengel stated that there was no good solution for the traffic turning movements. He wondered if there was a capability for a community center building in the project, and whether a change in the site plan density provided any more usable open space than the previous plan. Member Thomas asked for detailed descriptions of the architectural sketches. Chairman Wietecki asked for clarification regarding the access from the garage into the units, and member Rengel asked for clarification regarding the exterior materials. Mr. Peterson explained that there will be direct access from the garage into the units and that the exterior of the units will be aluminum siding and fascia along with vinyl clad windows and metal garage doors. He also explained the condominium escrow requirements which would help satisfy maintenance problems in the future. Citizens Claire Sazma~ 1065 Grandview Avenue, stated that the driveway entrance across from her house shined lights into her bedroom windows. She was opposed to the signage on the site and generally opposed to the project. Ann Keller, 959 Grandview Avenue, expressed concern aboutthe traffic studies and traffic counts, in noting that 116 cars could be generated in a peak hour. She preferred business on the site because the business would distribute traffic throughout the day. The project may include resident or visiting children who would be encouraged to play in the private street area. While she is still opposed to the project, Ms. Keller found the traffic as currently presented was a vast improvement over the first project. There was no other public comment.