My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 9:52:39 AM
Creation date
12/8/2015 10:22:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/16/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 16, 2015 <br />Page 26 <br />b. Approve Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Agreement 3608, <br />Rosedale Center <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized requested actions tonight of the <br />City Council, as detailed in the RCA and attachments dated November 16, 2015. <br />Mr. Paschlce provide a brief history and brief review of the PUD Amendment <br />analysis performed by staff and further detailed in the RCA, highlighting refer- <br />ences to a pending public improveinent contract to be entered into by the devel- <br />oper. <br />After applicant review of staff's analysis and subsequent to dissemination of the <br />agenda pacicet materials, Mr. Paschke noted they had raised soine questions as to <br />required window placeinent and sought staff's rationale in what anchor tenants <br />looked like for those building facades, noting that they were not department store <br />fronts with a significant amount of glass facing a public street such as would be <br />found in a more commercial, stand-alone retail ar office building scenario. Mr. <br />Paschlce advised that the farade of this building would be similar to the <br />Nordstrom's building at Ridgedale, and would be inore appropriate at 5% versus <br />20%. After further review, Mr. Paschke advised that staff agreed with the ra- <br />tionale of the applicant, and was revising their recommendation (in lines 125 — <br />128 or the RCA) for openings to comprise 5% versus 10% to 20% as previously <br />noted and to be reviewed in the PUD Amendment as well. <br />Councilmember Willmus asked if roadway improveinents for this approximate <br />180,000 square foot addition context would involve that entire square footage or <br />jttst the main addition. <br />Mr. Paschlce responded that he was unsure of that, and deferred to the applicant or <br />Public Works Director Culver to address that question relative to the traffic study <br />done by the developer. <br />Councilmeinber McGehee asked the types of use intended for the five outlot <br />spaces. <br />Mr. Paschke responded that future uses had yet to be identified, but he anticipated <br />typical restaurant, bank or office type uses, all subject to approval of each use in <br />accordance with City Code. <br />If uses are yet to be determined, Councilmember McGehee questioned why those <br />outlots needed approval at this time, since the original focus of this application <br />was based on the main building and parking structure, without any idea of the us- <br />es of those outlying pads at this time. <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the outlots had been incorporated into land that is party <br />to this PUD Amendment, with design standards dictating future development and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.