Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A. Revised building elevations that modify the roofline (dormers) and inclusion of <br />decks. <br /> <br />B. Submittal of final utility plans that account for proper sizing of sanitary sewer and <br />watermain and submittal of grading and drainage plans with storm water <br />calculations. These plans must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering <br />Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br /> <br />C. Submittal of final site and landscaping plans. The landscape plan must <br />incorporate screening of the underground parking garage and be superimposed on <br />the utility plan. The Community Development Department is required to review <br />and approve these plans prior to building permit issuance. <br /> <br />D. Submittal of a parking lot and building lighting plans for review and approval by <br />the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building <br />permi 1. <br /> <br />E. Submittal of any signage plan for review and approval by the Community <br />Development Department. Signage requires a separate permit form the Building <br />Department. <br /> <br />F. Provision of the sidewalk & and trail fee amounting to $2,565 ($15 per lineal <br />foot). <br /> <br />7.0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />7.1 On Wednesday, March 14,2001, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public <br />hearing on the Cave & Associates request. At this meeting many residents from Transit <br />Avenue (north of the subject site) addressed the Commission. Their concerns included <br />size of apartment complex, building height, vehicle headlights, and area drainage. <br />However, the major concerns were regarding wildlife and vegetation preservation and <br />site drainage/pond impact (see attached draft minutes). <br /> <br />7.2 The Commission asked questions of staff, mostly related to site details. However, after <br />considering the development proposal and hearing from the neighboring property owners, <br />the majority of the Commission felt that a medium density (instead of high density) <br />development would be more appropriate. <br /> <br />7.3 An initial motion by the Planning Commission, to recommend approval the proposal as <br />presented by staff, failed (2-4). <br /> <br />7.4 The Commission recommended (4-2) denial of the requested Comprehensive Land Use <br />Plan amendment from Business (B) to High Density Residential (RR) and recommended <br />(4-2) denial of a rezoning from Retail Business District (B-2) to Multi-Family Residence <br />District; Three to Twenty Four (R-3A). <br /> <br />PF3293 - RCA 032601 Page 70f8 <br />