My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Correspondence 1989-1990 Jopke
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
1983-1993 Correspondance and Office Hours Records
>
Correspondence 1989-1990 Jopke
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2016 4:31:17 PM
Creation date
2/9/2016 12:59:37 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
538
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
2. New parking lot surfacing shall be a minimum of 2 inches of <br />;• bituminous pavement. A parking lot expansion of 10 percent or <br />more (surface area) will trigger conformance to design standards <br />for the entire lot. <br />u <br />C. <br />V. <br />A. <br />D. <br />In the case of the reconstruction of the an entire lot where new <br />curbing is installed, parking setbacks change, additional landscaping is <br />provided, and/or other details of significant parking lot expansion occur, <br />a site plan review process wauld be required. Thus, if any such <br />conformance to current design standards are not to be accomplished, the <br />extent to which this is proposed would b� subject to the review and <br />approval of the Planning Commission and Council. <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION <br />The Planning Commission recommends that resolution Number 6821 <br />adopted by the City Council on May 21, 1979 (attached as Appendix 2) <br />as it relates to the criteria for dedication of rights-of-way shall remain <br />the same except to add an llth condition that would require dedicaiion <br />that being the adoption of a rezoning. It may be a rare case where a <br />rezoning only is applied for on a particular piece of property without <br />any of the other 10 actions being applicable. It has, however, occurred <br />in the past and may occur again, in which case a dedication should be <br />required. <br />BLIILQING CO�E ITEMS <br />BUILf�ING SECURITV MEASURES <br />_ ---�- <br />The Planning Commission recammends that amendment to Che building <br />code as recommended by the Police Department be considered for <br />adoption by th� Council, pending a review as to the extent to which <br />other com�5un'sties in the iuleCropolitan Area have adopted such <br />regulations. It rnay be appropriate to consider this amendment to the <br />Buildrng Code at the same time as the Council considers the �doptian <br />of Schedule E relating to th� standards a}�plicable by the requirement of <br />sprinkl�r systems in various ctasses Qf structur�s in the City of <br />Rosevills. <br />I-lANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY <br />The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council, Planning <br />Commission, and 5taff be concerned Chat the City makes sure that <br />required provisions for handicap accessibility as required by State Law <br />are carried out in the construction of new and renovated facilities. <br />Provisions for handicap facilities ar�e noted as a r�quired item in a site <br />plan review process, wherever such facilities are to be provided in the <br />developrnent of exterinr pedestrian and vehicular areas of tt7e site. <br />It a�pears that no new ordinances are required. Building officials should <br />I�e particularly aware to rnake certain that such required handicap design <br />� fe�tures as required by Code are implemented in the design and <br />construction of structures in the City of Roseville. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.