pf_02026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

, ~ rlJ8H..- _...-..' A._'"\" > 2. New parking lot 3Urfacing shaH be a minimum of 2 mches of bituJniOCU3 psveme'1t.. A perking jot expansion of 10 percent or more Csui"face ar~.. will trigger conformance to d$ign standards for t.'1:: entire lat. In ti"te case of the !'eronstruction of the an entire !ot where new CUI"DU1.:j u; installed, parldrog setbacks ::~ange, additional l&dscapi"S is pruvidec, and!~ o~r deteils c.f sisnific&'1t parking lot expansion occur, a site plar'l revie'.. process waul... be requi..-er;. Th~z if any such conformance to CUI"!:'ent ~gn staodc.'"t!s are nut to be a~rl'!p1ishet4 the extent to wr;ic.... this is proposed wouid be subject to the review and approv~! of the ~!anl1in9 u!":".miss.i,on and Councii. c. R.IG.'-fT-OF-WAY DEDICATION The Planning Commissit\n :-ecommenrls that resolution Number 6821 adr.pt~t! by the City Cou~i1 on t-.12\1 21, 1979 (attacterl as Appendix 2) a$ it relates to the criteria far ci~ication of rights-of-way shall remain the same except to add an lith ~ndition that wmud .-equire dedication th..t being the a::!.'3ption of a rezoning, It moy bf! a :ere case where a rezoning Qnly is applied for on 2 particular piece of pl'O.,erty without any of the ot.."ter 10 actions being applicable. It has. hows"e:', occur.ed in the past and may <JC(.'tii agai~ in which case a dedication should ~ requh-ed. v. !,ULDING ~ iTEMS A. BUn..DlNG SECURITY MEASURES The Planning Commission re~o:nmends t."tat amendment to the building code as n!cQmmended by the Pelic!! Depart....nent ~ coo.:.idsred fur adoptJoo by t."e Council, pending a re>,!ew at; tc t."te e>.xtem: tc whic.'1 ather communitif'.s in thg Metro!3olit~:; Are. have adopted such regulations. It mal' be appropriate tc cGnsid~r this ar.-endment to the Building Code at the same : :me 23 the Council comiders the adoption of Schedule E !'elating t.J th~ $t;:ndM'Cs a.pplicable by the requL.--ement of sprink1~I systems in 1iaI'iGUS dasses of s~t.ictures in t."e Cit}' of RO$eville. 8. HANDICAP ACCESSIBIUiY The Planning Commission recommends t:-",- ~..." City Cel_ :dl, Plenoing CDmmissiQn. ",...d S::..~~ ~e concer-oed that the City rnak~, sure that .-eq\Ji~ ~ovisior.s 70. hanrlicap accessibility as :-equireri by Stare Law a..-e C.8I':,ieci od in tl.e C-OO$t...-uction of new a~ .enovated facilities. Provisio:lS :0r handicac facilit~es arE; noted a~ a rsc:.;ir~ i1:2011 in a site plar. revie..... pi9Ces.s,. ~/here\'~ Sl.:d; ;ac-Uities are t~ :'e pro'llded in the ~veic~me:it of exte:rio, pedest:'i~il und vehic-uiar a;-e-a$ of the site. It appea..-s t.~at no roew ;;Jrd:;o;:.n~-$ are be particut<..ly "ware to make C'erta:n features as requi~d by Cade are cOn."itruction of st.~uctures in the Ci::~' requireo. BuUdhg officials should Lhat such .-squired handicap design irnp!p-r.lent~d 1;1 ::he de.s'gl'l amI 0; Ro:;e,,' ate. -- --. --... . ~.~- - - ..